FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amir Assadi-Rad - SJDC

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Andy Thomas - SJDC

Angela Gregory - Chabot College

n/a

Anita Guatam - SJDC

Becky Opsata - DVC

Ben Warheidt - SJDC

Bruce Eigbrett - SJDC

Charles Jennings - SJDC

Dan Baker - SJDC

Dana Takaguchi - LPC

n/a

Debi Kininmonth - SJDC

Debra Louie - SJDC

Eileen Thomas - SJDC

Eric Campanano - Chabot College

n/a

Gillian Murphy - SJDC

Ginger Holden - SJDC

Glenn Prince - Rice

n/a

Harrold Centeno - SJDC

Heather Robinson - SJDC

James Forte - SJDC

Jamie Netznik - Concordia-CA

n/a

Janet Brehe-Johnson - LPC

n/a

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jenn Sullivan - Rice

n/a

Jim Leach - SJDC

John Hanecak - DVC

I look forward to a debate which is resolutional, provides ground for both sides, is incredibly well signposted, has plenty of clash, is delivered for a universal audience, contains some taseful wit, and is, in the end, the most persuasive. Like the 'ole 1960/1970's slogan said, "speed kills" when it comes to delivery. A sound final rebuttal also goes a long way. I enjoy policy, fact or value debates and am ready to listen to arguments as to how the language prefers one over the other. In all cases, don't forget the clash.

Kay Harrison - Ohlone College

n/a

Kristina Whalen - CCSF

Kyle Van Sant - Chabot College

n/a

Libby Simas - Solano

Lisa Lucchesi - SJDC

Maddie Shields - SJDC

Marjorie Hazeltine - San Jose State

n/a

Mary Ann Schermerhorn - SJDC

Nancy Petersen - SJDC

Natalie Sintek - Concordia-CA

n/a

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.

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Pablo Ortega - SJDC

Paige Sechrest - PDB

Pam Muckenfuss - SJDC

Paul Kuehn - SJDC

Paul Davis - Azusa

Robyn Burror - SJDC

Rocky LaJeunesse - SJDC

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed. Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps. I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it. If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.     Specifics: Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher. Topicality: Hey Aff…be topical. T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components . I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible. Critiques: I enjoy critical theory…that being said I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you persuade. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K. So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well. If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen. Just make sure you run them in a way that is still topical. Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Side Note: In NPDA I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said. I got it the first time…why are you winning? Speed: I think in general speed can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear.”

Sheila Whitt - SJDC

Solyn Laney - SJDC

Stacey Bagnasco - SJDC

Theresa Perry - Chico

Tim Ernst - Pacific

n/a

Tina Lim - San Jose State

You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason.  My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position. As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.

christine warda - Chabot

n/a

2010 Mustang Invitational