FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Anson O'Rourke-Sargent - SRJC

Caterina Grossi - MJC

Elicia Locke - DVC

n/a

Fletcher Wingfield - SRJC

James Rogers - SRJC

Manveer Singh - Ohlone

Megan Chatelain - MJC

Norissa McLorin - CCSF

Rosemary Endick - DVC

Taure Shimp - MJC

OVERVIEW Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis. GENERAL PREFERENCES In IPDA: The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.  In NFA-LD: Please set up a <a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules. </a>Specifically, the rules state: "Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent's discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over." In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round. In Parli: Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.” Procedurals and Kritiks can make for good debate… …but I find AFF Ks are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity. If you choose to run a Kritik (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole. Rebuttals are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters. I evaluate the round by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages. Etiquette: I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors. MISCELLANEOUS FAQ Sit or stand during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you. Partner communication is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.

Viet Le - CCSF

About Debate in general: - To do debate is a great PRIVILEGE. Many countries don’t have access to debate activities and the ability to express opinions. Debate is simply incredible, like a sweet dream come true for many people. Treasure the activity and be respect to everyone. - Debate should be a POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE for everyone. - Learning a new thing from debate is not necessarily good. Demonstrating knowledge of debate structure, logical reasoning, facts, emotional appeal, critical thinking and theories are the gold standard. - No bullying, silencing human expression, and treating people as nothing more than mindless/obedient slaves. I cannot turn a blind eye to these harmful practices in a debate round. - Explain your argument as if you are talking to a smart middle school student who knows nothing about the topic. - I will not use my knowledge or personal bias to influence my judgment. Don't be afraid if you think your argument is radical. No matter how extreme your argument is, as long as your explanation is reasonable and clear, it's okay. - Explanation, explanation, and explanation are highly important. How you win: - Clash: the opponent make an argument against you, you respond and turn his/her argument against them - Impact calculation: - Magnitude: How big is the impact? - Probability: What are the chances? How likely is the impact? - Time frame: When does the impact happen? Immediately? A week? A Year? 100 years? - Use terminology to label and structure your arguments, such as uniqueness, link, impact, etc. - Be confident in your understanding of the resolution. Your understanding is central to you being able to deploy your - Don’t be greedy. A good and well-explained Advantage/Disadvantage (for Aff/Neg) is much more educational and persuasive than 2 or more poorly written ones. It helps your teammates and opponents understand and engage with your arguments. Don’t run poorly explained arguments. - Finally, DON'T FORGET TO SMILE AND ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!

2015 NCFA Debate Camp