FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Andy MacNeill - Mesa

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Bill Eddy - IVC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Testing 123

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Jason Hall - SDCC

n/a

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kim Perigo - Mesa

~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition. Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Judging Background             While I am new to the debate judging experience, I am not new to the overall activity.  I was an IE coach and judge for Biola University for 4 years and am currently a coach for PLNU.  In another life, I would want to be a debater, but for this life, I have been working on understanding this activity by observing real rounds in past tournaments and critiquing practice rounds at PLNU practices.   Judging Philosophy             In light of my background, I view debate as a showcase in good storytelling as well as an exercise in sound logic and argumentation.  So, tell me a coherent story: how do the elements of your case (plan/CP, ads/DAs, Ks or whatever you decide to run) show that you’re winning the round?  Tie everything together; give me the big picture.  I also like to hear clear concise <a name="_GoBack"></a>claims, evidence of research, breadth and depth of knowledge, use of logic.  If you decide to run something complicated, tell me why this is going to win you the round.               Organization is important.  Tell me the exact location on the flow that you are addressing.  Don’t expect me to bridge any gaps in your argumentation.                 Be communicative.  From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding.  Speak conversationally.   Use humor.               Argue with ethos—be professional.  Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner.  Being a shmendrik will not win you points.

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Robert Margesson - Regis

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!

Judge Philosophies

Andy MacNeill - Mesa

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Bill Eddy - IVC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Jason Hall - SDCC

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kim Perigo - Mesa

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Robert Margesson - Regis

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Ruby Nunez - Regis

Sean Connor - OCC

Shaw Davari - OCC

Sydney Awakuni - Concordia

Yaw Kyeremateng - Concordia

2015 Montezuma Mesa Invitational

Judge Philosophies

Andy MacNeill - Mesa

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Bill Eddy - IVC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Jason Hall - SDCC

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kim Perigo - Mesa

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Robert Margesson - Regis

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Ruby Nunez - Regis

Sean Connor - OCC

Shaw Davari - OCC

Sydney Awakuni - Concordia

Yaw Kyeremateng - Concordia