Judge Philosophies
Alex Carr - Concordia
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Barry Regan - Glendale CC
n/a
Brandan Whearty - Palomar
CLS Ferguson - SDSU
<p><strong>I competed in IEs and NPDA for Palomar then Cal Baptist. I coached NPDA, NFA-LD, IPDA, and IEs for Ball State, LSU, and Mt. SAC. I have researched and written extensively about forensics, especially NPDA. I am currently a communication professor who occasionally coaches a novice and occasionally judges. I love forensics, and I am looking forward to watching you debate. I have extensive NPDA debating, judging, and coaching experience. This is my favorite event. It's your round; debate the way you want. I will flow your arguments and use your guidance to determine how the arguments should be weighed out in the round. I really do pay attention and do my best to make a decision based on what is said in the round. The rest of this explanation is meant to give you insight so that you can be more persuasive to my point of view.</strong></p> <p><strong>If you as the government decide to ignore the topic given to you and the other team runs topicality, I will be easily persuaded to vote opposition. I guess you could call me “old school” in the sense that I appreciate teams standing to speak when able, rising to ask questions or call points of order, heckling, and being courteous and respectful. I don’t mind you giving your partner a suggestion here and there, but speaking loudly over your partner suggests to me that you don’t trust your partner’s debating, which makes me question them, too. After all, I can really only flow the debater whose turn it is to speak. There was a time when I could flow pretty fast. At this point, I am a little rusty, so please keep your pace moderate rather that top speed, just so I don’t miss anything. My nonverbals are pretty obvious, so if you look at me, I think you’ll know if I am buying your argument or not and whether or not I am lost. I think the most important positions in the round are procedurals: resolutionality/trichotomy, topicality, specifications, etc. That said, they don’t automatically win because you mention them. I am open to listening to kritiks, but I hardly ever vote for them. I need a clear, non-permuted alternative to vote for K. I also need to understand the K and be convinced that YOU understand the K. I do not appreciate rudeness. Please have fun, be clear, and tell me where to vote and why. Finally, I will not disclose which side I voted for unless instructed to by the tournament.</strong></p>
Carrie Patterson - MSJC
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
n/a
Darron Devillez - Palomar
n/a
Dewi Hokett - Palomar
Duc Le - Mesa
Emily Crosby - Concordia
Erik Johnson - SDSU
Euni Kim - Utah
n/a
Evan Haynes - Pacific
<p><strong>Evan Haynes</strong></p> <p><strong>My Background</strong></p> <p>I debated for 3 years at City College of San Francisco and 3 years at University of the Pacific in Parliamentary and LD debate. I graduated in 2016, and have come back to debate this year to be an assistant coach.</p> <p><strong>General Comments</strong></p> <p>I evaluate debates through comparative impact calculous, and I am open to whatever framework you believe the debate should be evaluated through. I think all speech acts are performance, and I am open to any type or structure of argument. I think you should run arguments you believe in or believe are the best strategy, not what you think I would like. However, when it comes to impacts, I prefer topically intuitive impact scenarios with well warranted explanation, even if they are much smaller in magnitude, to large impact scenarios that are relatively unexplained. Equity and compassion are paramount for me. I don’t believe more advanced teams should use speed or lack of clarity to prevent a substantive debate from occurring with less experienced teams.</p> <p><strong>Critical Aff’s/Performance</strong></p> <p>I enjoy many critical affirmatives, but if the Aff does not defend the topic, I become more easily persuaded by negative argumentation that the affirmative has limited the capacity for an educational and fair discussion to take place. Personalized performances can be transformative, but they can also be very difficult to judge in a competitive context.</p> <p><strong>Negative Strategies</strong></p> <p>I am most persuaded by deep and well warranted negative strategies that are topic specific. This can be the DA/CP or the K. CP theory is fine. But know I don’t think text comp is legit. Conditional CP’s are fine, but I am equally open to reasons why condo is abusive.</p>
Evan Ziegler - SDSU
Greg Gurham - Grand Canyon
Hannah Harrer - SDSU
Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC
n/a
Jen Baney - Pacific
<p><span dir="ltr">Jennifer Baney</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Graduate Student at the University of the Pacific</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Assistant coach for University of the Pacific</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Previous Assistant coach at Los Medanos College</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Debating experience</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">All 4years at Derby Highschool styles- Varistiy Policy, Extemp, Congressional, LD, and PFD</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">2 years at the Los Medanos College preforming in Worlds Debate</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">2 Years at UC Davis Worlds Debate</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Speech Experience</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">All 4years at Derby Highschool- Informative, Original Oratory, Impromptu and Poetry</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Paradigm</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option will be picking up the ballot. I will vote heavily on disadvantages, advantages, and counterplans. Unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in a debate and removes any educational value. That being said you really have to impact things out so that your Adv. or DA hold weight the entire round. However, if someone is clearly not topical run T. Kritik are rad but they need to add education to the round. Simply debate is affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages. I like speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Purpose of Philosophy</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">I hope this helps you understand the way that I look at debate. Education is the best way for all of us to grow. Debate is one of the best ways to hash out information and create the highest level of education available in that round.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Etiquette</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">All of that being said I will pay attention to how you treat each-other. Aggressive debate is great and why I want to sit in the room and watch however, being a jerk is not. This again is an inclusive community and if someone is rude it can hinder the reason we are actually here. You should cross aisle and shake hands.</span></p>
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Joy Henry - Mesa
Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC
<p>4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.</p>
Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC
Malcolm Gamble - CSUF
n/a
Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon
Paxton Attridge - CSULA
n/a
Rob Layne - Utah
<p> </p> <p>As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993. I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform. I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter. That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.</p> <p> </p> <p>Some general notes:</p> <p>(As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).</p> <p> </p> <ol> <li>Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.</li> <li>Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”</li> <li>Use warrants in all of your arguments. This means grounding arguments in specific examples. </li> <li>Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation. My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition. I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm. If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.</li> <li>Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks. I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.</li> <li>Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey. I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.</li> <li>I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch. Let me have time to flip the page.</li> <li>Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round. I don’t award double wins or double losses.</li> <li>Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously. “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.</li> <li>I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order. If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.</li> <li>Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.</li> <li>Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc. I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep. </li> <li> Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.</li> <li>Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.</li> <li>Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments. Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.</li> <li>Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.</li> <li>Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.</li> <li>Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.</li> <li>I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal. It’s not like paper is sacrosanct. If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.</li> <li>Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Speaker points:</p> <p>I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.</p> <p> </p> <p>Critical Arguments:</p> <p> </p> <p>I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.</p> <p> </p> <p>Performance based arguments:</p> <p>Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.</p> <p> </p> <p>Procedurals:</p> <p> </p> <p>I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable. I have a low threshold on procedurals. Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you. I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a higher standard than I would LOC theory.</p> <p> </p> <p>Counterplans</p> <p>I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Sam Ciraulo - SDSU
Sarah Hinkle - CC
Scott Plambek - Mesa
Steven Villescas - Concordia
n/a