FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alicia Smith - SJDC

n/a

Andrew Schwartz - DVC

Annie Sinclair - SJDC

n/a

Avesta Sabetian - San Jose State

Ben Pierson - Chabot

Brianna Klipp - Los Medanos

Claire White - Los Rios

n/a

Cody Green - Columbia

Danielle Broadway - SJDC

n/a

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

David Jaques - San Jose State

Dejon English - Yuba

n/a

Eric Thomas - SJDC

n/a

Erika Jauregui - SJDC

n/a

Greg Kling - DVC

Janine White - Butte

n/a

Jared Chernila - DVC

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jenna Hewitt - Chabot

Jeramie Brown - Chabot

Jesse Smith - CCSF

Jessica Harrington - Butte

n/a

Jordan Brown - CCSF

Joseph Kimple - SRJC

Josh Noriega - Los Medanos

Joshua Blas - DVC

Katelin Zweifel-Korzuchin - San Jose State

Katie Lindsay - CCSF

Katrina Swanson - San Jose State

Kristina Whalen - CCSF

Kurt Wagner - CCSF

Kyle Johnson - CCSF

Lelah Smick - SFSU

Lupe Mauricio - Los Medanos

Mariah Noah - 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.

Matthew Zweier - San Jose State

I prefer debates that are grounded in reality, where impacts represent legitimate concerns and are not drawn to a hyperbole. I value probability over magnitude for impacts. Clarity is a virtue I hope everyone embodies since it makes my job easier. Spreading is something I do not value and do not wish to hear in a debate. It has no value outside of debate and, in my experience, lessens debate as a whole. I enjoy procedural arguments, but only if they are warranted, and if you do the work to make it a strong argument. Procedurals simply for the sake of winning, when it isn’t appropriate, is poor sportsmanship and something I find distasteful. When it comes to Ks, I will not listen to your K unless you can prove the government is being truly abusive. Running a K for the sake of winning, such as running a preprepared K because you figure the other team won’t know how to respond, will only hurt you in the round. I like to see clash in the round that focuses on the topic we have been called to debate. Strong arguments with clear links, evidence to support, and a great presentation are what makes a great debate.

Mike Epley - CCSF

I think debate is an educational rhetoric game. I try not to intervene if the debate meets two principles: 1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to different interpretations of the rules, but less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” If you volunteer to compete in an activity for a prize (the ballot), you’re committing to follow the rules as the first qualification to receive the prize. As far as I can tell, that’s the only way to keep a competitive activity fair. I’m unlikely to bend on my commitment to rule adherence as I see it as a gateway to competitive equity. 2. By default, I am inclined to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity and access in forensics. If you’re unclear on these points, please ask before the round begins. * These are not personal rules, but rather strongly-held biases. In the absence of an argument made in-round, and unless I think a violation is egregious, I am reluctant to intervene. My preferences: I like it when debaters are considerate. I don't like speed in debate. Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. Speaker points: I like hearing arguments about speaker points rather than making up my own criteria. Rebuttals:  I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new. Where applicable, please make it easy for me by calling Points of Order when you think an argument is new. My limitations: I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I did about 5 years of Parli, so if you’ve been doing policy since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. If I look confused, I probably am. Linguistically, I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Buyer beware: I don't flow speed well.

Natalie Meany - SFSU

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.

Nyssa Noble - Los Medanos

Otto Kafka - SJDC

n/a

Pablo Lopez - Columbia

Paris Player - SFSU

Prince White - Los Rios

n/a

Richard Jaykins - Chabot

Ryan Gallagher - San Jose State

Ryan Nelson - Yuba

n/a

Sabrina Sakdikul - DVC

Sarah Knight - Chabot

n/a

Sarah Dorman - Ohlone College

n/a

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I'm very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I'm also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you're being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent's voters. I personally hate spreading, so I'm very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it's still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why. Don't be mean and let's make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.

2013 NCFA Spring Fling