Judge Philosophies
Abas Idris - SFSU
n/a
Allen Amundsen - SJDC
Alyssa Lenart - SJDC
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Anthony Morales - Hired
n/a
Darren Phalen - Solano
<p>Be courteous and structured. Make sound arguments, and tell me why you have won the debate. Please debate the resolution, and do not spread. There is no need for speed.</p>
Erica Amundsen - Hired
n/a
Gagandeep Gill - San Jose State
<p>Background: Debated in parli as an undergrad for three years .</p> <p> </p> <p>I'm what you would call a "tabula rasa" judge: the world in the round is as the teams lay it out for me. If one team says the sky is green, and the other doesn't refute it, then despite knowing it's actually blue, I will consider it to be green when deciding the winner. My job as a judge is solely to evaluate the arguments and refutations both sides to present me. I will not do your job when it comes to defending your arguments or destroying theirs. That being said, if the the other side does point out that the sky is blue, then I will side with them because my own knowledge backs this up. </p> <p> </p> <p>Key things:</p> <p>-In your rebuttal, be clear about where you want me to focus my attention when weighing the round, otherwise it is up to me to decide which arguments I think deserve the most consideration.</p> <p>-Be respectful. I have a very low tolerance for debaters who shift from actually debating to personal attacks. Be ruthless in your strategy but keep that solely to the debate itself. </p> <p>-I'm fine with speed, but I prefer a few good arguments over numerous arguments that have no real substance to them. I will be voting on what I hear so don't let a good argument fall to the wayside because you blazed over a crucial part.</p>
Gerald Bejarin - SJDC
Jason Hough - Hartnell
n/a
Kathryn Starkey - CSU
<p><strong>Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey </strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Section 1: General Information </strong></p> <p>I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011. I coached at Texas Tech University for the three years following UW. Now, I am the Director of forensics at CSU Pueblo in my 3rd year. As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Section 2: Specific Inquiries </strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.</strong></p> <p>So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? </strong></p> <p>I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate.</p> <p>The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason. Please be topical. I’m very persuaded by framework arguments.</p> <p>As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult at times and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 3. Performance based arguments…</strong></p> <p>Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? </strong></p> <p>For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations.</p> <p>To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?</strong></p> <p>With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise.</p> <p>I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it.</p> <p>Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)</strong></p> <p>Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 7. 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?)?</strong></p> <p>As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>1. 8. 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")?</strong></p> <p>I would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume</p> <p> </p> <p>Other Random thoughts J</p> <ul> <li>I LOVE disads.</li> <li>Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!</li> <li>POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.</li> <li>Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.</li> <li>Overviews are good; you should use them.</li> <li>Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.</li> <li>I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.</li> <li>Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Kelly Lootz - Pacific
<p><span dir="ltr">I am an Interper by trade and currently an Individual Events coach. That being said, I’ve been around debate in various capacities for over eight years and love the activity. Some things to consider if you find me at the back of the room:</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr"> </span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Speed – Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can’t understand you I can’t vote for you.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Arguments – Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing!</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">Jargon – Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.</span></p> <p><span dir="ltr"> </span></p> <p><span dir="ltr">At the end of the day, tell me why I should vote for you. As a former interper I love to see the passion in a round – in your last speech break it down for me and tell me why you win! </span></p> <p> </p>
Kimberly Bozeman - Hired
n/a
Kyle Johnson - San Jose State
Lana McDonnell - Hartnell
n/a
Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU
Loretta Rowley - Utah
<p>I am primarily an individual events coach. I did not compete in, nor do I coach debate. I have taught and continue to teach argumentation courses and thus, I prefer slower delivery and well-developed arguments. Essentially, I am not well-versed in debate jargon so don't assume that I will have the exact understanding of your version of debate theory. That said, I can follow and assess any debate as long as the competitors explain themselves fully and weigh their arguments. </p>
Mariela Guzman - Hired
n/a
Mark Nelson - SRJC
Marnie Salvani - Concordia
Mauro Solis - Hired
n/a
Monica Silveria - Hired
n/a
Natalie Meany - FCC
Natalie Kellner - Ohlone
Nathan Steele - CCSF
<p>What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech.</p> <p>What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other.</p> <p>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches.</p> <p>How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.</p>
Nick Brummel - S@B
n/a
Patrick Moe - DVC
<p>You should argue whatever you want, but never assume I know why you are arguing it until you tell me why. Continuously answer the question: "So what?!" </p> <p>The longer I do this the less impressed I am by debate jargon. After competing in and coaching both high school and college forensics (including 7 years as the Director of Forensics at DVC), I speak debate fluently, but I very much prefer English. Telling me, "Jargon, jargon, jagon therefore I win" rarely actually wins my ballot. Instead what wins my ballot is an understanding of debate with examples, precedent, narrative, delivery, and a sense of humor.</p> <p>I fully understand and appreciate line by line refutation, but in rebuttals I very much prefer story-telling and persuasion over technocratic debate. Also in rebuttals when it comes to impact calculus I am much more likely to be swayed by probabilty over magnitude than I am magnitude over probability. </p> <p>Angry and yelling debate almost never wins my ballot. </p> <p>I dislike speed--I'd prefer if you talked to me like a human being rather than like a flowing robot.</p> <p>Most important, have fun and learn. If you are not having fun and learning, stop giving up your weekends to do this.</p>
Robert Hawkins - DVC
n/a
Sarah Kellner - Ohlone
Scott Nelson - Hired
n/a
Shannon LaBove - Rice
<p><strong>Shannon LaBove</strong> MA, JD</p> <p>ADOF Rice University</p> <p>Judging Philosophy</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)</strong></p> <p>I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote. </p> <p><strong>Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong></p> <p>I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:</p> <p><em>Don’t Like:</em></p> <ul> <li> <p>I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.</p> </li> <li> <p>I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.</p> </li> <li> <p>I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch. </p> </li> </ul> <p><em>Do Like</em></p> <ul> <li> <p>Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.</p> </li> <li> <p>Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.</p> </li> <li> <p>Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist </p> </li> <li> <p>Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.</p> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p>I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.</p> <p><strong>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong></p> <p>I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.</p> <p><strong>Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks</strong></p> <p>No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.</p> <p><strong>Preferences on calling Points of Order. </strong></p> <p>If you see it call it.</p> <p>Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!</p>