Judge Philosophies
Allen Amundsen - SJDC
Blake Longfellow - DVC
n/a
Burke Thomson - SJDC
n/a
Cole McLean - SFSU
n/a
Dakota Park-Ozee - Utah
Daniel Lopez - Hartnell
n/a
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.
Duncan Stewart - Utah
<p>I participated in parliamentary debate at The University of Utah for 4 years. I coached for Lewis & Clark College for 2 years. I am currently coaching at The University of Utah.</p> <p> </p> <p>Overview</p> <p>My preference is that you do what type of argumentation you like to do, and/or what is most strategic given the topic. I will not use my ballot as an attempt to discipline the activity in the direction I think it should go. If you win the argument on the flow I will vote for it. That being said, I judge debate via a line-by-line flow. If you have an alternate way you’d like me to evaluate the round, solid! I will consider the debate in any manner you’d like me to. Just be clear about what that method is. I will use only your explanations of arguments to make my decision. Meaning even if an argument is ‘dropped’ it’s difficult for me to vote for it absent warrants.</p> <p>Theory</p> <p>I don’t hold any standardized positions on theory arguments. Debaters should get access to their arguments without an offensive theoretical objection explaining why that should not be the case. Have that debate. Please repeat your interpretations twice, or give me a written copy.</p> <p>Advantages and Disadvantages</p> <p>Links come before risk calculation. Impact calculus will win you these debates. Unless specifically told otherwise, I will compare arguments via timeframe magnitude and probability. Defense makes both of our jobs easier, but only when accompanied by offense.</p> <p>Counter plans</p> <p>Evaluating the round becomes easier if the LOC reads theoretical justifications for their counter plan. This prevents new theory answers I have to consider in the PMR.</p> <p>Kritiks</p> <p>To be especially compelling these should be operationalized as if I have no familiarity with your literature. You should be specific about what you are criticizing. For example, if you are a questioning of methodology you should say so in the LOC. Your criticism is easier to evaluate when the critique of the aff happens on the thesis/links level, not in the framework. On the topic of critical affs, go for it!</p> <p>Other general statements</p> <p>Speed is good, but not at the cost of excluding someone.</p> <p>Call points of order, though I will do my best to protect against new arguments.</p> <p>I think taking questions produces better debate. You should take one in each in constructive.</p> <p> </p>
Eric Fuentes - MJC
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>
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.
Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC
n/a
Jeff Toney - SJDC
Kathleen Bruce - SJDC
Kelsey Paiz - Chabot
<p>I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now ADOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (T’s, CP’s, K’s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.</p> <p>I’m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you don’t have to speak at a “conversational” pace, if I can’t keep up with you, your arguments won’t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.</p> <p>I don’t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn.</p> <p>Above all, keep things civil and have fun!</p>
Kyle Johnson - San Jose State
Lemar Karimi - San Jose State
Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU
Mariela Guzman - SJDC
n/a
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>
Nicolaus Aguirre - SJDC
n/a
Nicole Sandoval - SJDC
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
n/a
Rachel Wiggington - Hartnell
n/a
Raman Deol - SJDC
Randy Carver - Contra Costa
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>
Salim Razawi - LPC
n/a
Scott Laczko - San Jose State
n/a
Scott Laczko - San Jose State
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>
Steven Graham - SJDC
Susan Houlihan - SRJC
n/a
Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba
n/a