FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Blake Longfellow - DVC

n/a

Daniel Lopez - Chabot

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

Erika Anderson - Chico

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

Kelly Lootz - Pacific

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:   Speed – Take it down a notch or two and enunciate. If I can’t understand you I can’t vote for you. Arguments – Anything goes. Just make sure you take the time to explain what you are going for. Impact Calculus is always a great thing! Jargon – Be sure to explain exactly what you mean. If you just throw debate jargon at me, I may not catch it.   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!

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State

Mariela Guzman - Hired

n/a

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Matthew Zupko - San Jose State

I’ll flow anything you tell me, just be organized and let me know where you are. You need to tell me why your impact is good (or bad)- I’m going to try not to assume anything. I really appreciate solid link scenarios, and evidence with good warrants can win you the round. Speed is fine, but please be respectful if the other team calls slow or clear. I like to hear about the topic, but if you run procedurals and provide good warrants I’ll vote on it. I prefer proven abuse but it’s not necessary to win the position. Weigh out and evaluate impacts, because if you don’t I have to do it myself and you probably don’t want that. Timeframe, probability and magnitude are what I’m accustomed to hearing and I will usually put the most weight into probability unless you can show me why I shouldn’t.

Natalie Kellner - Ohlone

Nathan Steele - CCSF

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. 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. 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. 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.

Raman Deol - Hired

n/a

Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte

n/a

Stephanie Morris - Hired

n/a

Stephen Ban - Butte

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba

n/a

Tim Elizondo - Columbia

Background:  I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program.  Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years.   The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.  I will never vote on dehumanization if you use the term as a kind of shorthand for oppression, death, or some sort of other severely inhumane notion or treatment of poepple.  Use different langauge to articulate this idea set as the idea set associated with "duhmanization" as a debate buzzword are minimized by the trend in debate to use it as jargon. Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars.  As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.   I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round.  I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Prefiat > post fiat. I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO.  I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .   -I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.   -I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.   -I do not mind “tag teaming” during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.   -Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.   -Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

2016 Mustang Invitational