2021 NCFA Spring Fling

San Francisco State University - May 1 | Status: Completed | 9:05 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 9:05 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Help Room   Judges Room   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Walsh - DVC

n/a

Alexis Rangel - MJC

n/a

Aman Butt - Contra Costa

n/a

Amaryllis Gao - Skyline

n/a

Amy Chang - CCSF

Aranveer Litt - FCC

n/a

Autumn Jimenez - SFSU

n/a

Bailey Coleman - MJC

I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.

I am not the biggest of fan of speed. Since I am partly a flow judge, if a speaker is too fast for me to get everything on the flow then it's hard to visualize the debate on paper and see where arguments may have been dropped or pulled across. I would much rather listen to a solid, slower speech that is easy to understand and sounds persuasive and logical. Taking time with two organized, in-depth arguments is better than spreading through a bunch of arguments.

I don't mind procedural arguments as long as they aren't used just to be squirrelly. If an affirmative team is blatantly not topical, then a topicality is fine and makes sense. If a negative team runs a T just for the fun of running one, then I feel it takes focus from the actual issue in the round.

An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly debate. I would like the AFF to be topical and focus on some solid solvency and advantages. I like the negative team to bring some good disadvantages to the round and only use topicality if totally needed. I do like counterplans and think they're a good test of the speakers' abilities to think on the spot and argue their best. I like structure and to be able to easily follow along on the flow, with debaters clearly signposting where they're at. Finally, overall I want to hear as much persuasion as possible and the debaters to clearly tell me why I should be voting for them.

Bernadette Noonan - Skyline

n/a

Carly Jarvis - Butte

n/a

Christina Veloza - Chabot

n/a

Christina Peterson - MJC

n/a

David Kirker - DVC

n/a

Devon Vandyke - Dark Horse

n/a

Diego Paez - Dark Horse

My experience in the debate is based on doing parli and LD for 4 years total. 2 in community college for SJDC and 2 years for the University of the Pacific. Now I'm coaching at SJDC under the wing of Jeff Toney and Steve Farias. Take that as you please on how I see the debate.

For parli, I am an ESL so speed is not my stronger suit, I can hang with the average debate speed but more than that you would lose me. I believe access to debate is more important so if your opponents ask for a slow down or a clear please do, don't be rude pretty please.

Arguments:

I love topicality debates, That was my to go strat in community college so I'm very happy with them if you know how to run them and how to win on them.

I'm familiar with most Ks in the area but I'm always open to new ones, you just need to explain it very well if you see me lost (I stop typing, that's your cue)

Impacts: I appreciate a clean impact weight in the rebottle, Tell me why you win this and how your opponent loses on their impacts. The less work I need to do the better for you

For the rest, I'm open to any type of argument and I enjoy creativity and spicing up the debate. Bring me some decol, some anti-capitalism, some imperialism, bring some flavor to the debate space.

Any other questions feel free to ask before the round.

Jackie Blair - Sacramento

n/a

Jared Trinidad - SFSU

n/a

Jasmine Putman - Sacramento

n/a

Kenneth Catlin - Butte

n/a

Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU

Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU. 

 

Parli: 

Any arguments go: case, theory, critique.  I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear. 

 

affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice. 

 

I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called. 

 

Spreading: 

Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a  fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear  should be your number one priority. 

 

Critiques: 

I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense.  At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.  

 

Novices:

If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument. 

 

Counter plan in novice:

Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive. 

 

Topicality in novice:

I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice.  This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before.  Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters.  Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T.  Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me. 

 

Topicality in Open:

I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy. 

I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.  

 

Kylie Barnhart - DVC

n/a

Lindsey Ayotte - Skyline

I view debate as a friendly intellectual exchange. Please do not assume I know what you are talking about-please give me a bit of context and background on the topic when setting up your case. I have a hard time with speed-do not spread. Not a fan of "everything ending in nuclear war" argument, give me realistic impacts not sweeping generalizatons. I also appreciate a bit of appropiate and professional humor in a round. I do not appreciate competitors who belittle and degrade their opponent, please show your competition respect verbally and non-verbally during a round.

Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa

I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.

Mahala Rogers - Sacramento

n/a

MeritGrace Schmid - Butte

n/a

Payton Polanco - FCC

n/a

Rudy Atlerlamb - Dark Horse

n/a

Sage Russo - CCSF

Tanya Prabhakar - DVC

n/a

Tayler Meulpolder - Contra Costa

n/a

Todd Guy - MJC

Todd Guy - Modesto Junior College

I love the game of debate and believe that the game is the thing!  I want the most intelligent debaters to win.  Part of that intelligence comes from knowing the game and knowing what the game can become because there are no rules against it.  Thus, all games have rules to be followed and I greatly respect those rules, but if the rules are not specific in some areas then provide me reasons why your angle should be accepted and I try to be as open minded as I possibly can.  I try to be open to any and all argumentation you may want to try. I love debate theory because I believe it is a large part of debate.  I love the strategy of T and jurisdictional arguments and find that as important as stock issues. But, also realize Iâ??m only going to consider Trichotomy arguments during the metaphor rounds since the State Constitution says we will have 2 rounds of policy and two rounds of value, but the two rounds of metaphor could fit any of the three types of claims.  I believe the rules do say prep time ends with the first speech thus I time road maps and really begin timing with your first word and if you are taking a long time setting up then I might be telling you your time has started. If you want to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that. There is nothing that says you can't Talk with your partner; so, feel free to talk to your partner.  However, realize that If they talk with you during a speech though then you need to repeat it if you want it on my flow.  On that same line don't give me POIs check back with no analysis as to why that should be and realize you answering a question doesn't go on my flow unless you address that answer to me and in asking a question don't assume their answer is on my flow - if you want it to be part of the debate then during the next speech make it part of the speech.  In rebuttals don't blip out responses with no analysis.  Of course this is where you need to tell me why I'm voting for you - so don't just say it - explain it.  In the LOR if the MO put out good arguments as to why I should vote opp you better pull them across because it is in that rebuttal that I truly want to know why I should consider voting for you. Don't assume I'm agreeing with you on any level - explain to me why I should be agreeing with you on all levels.  I'm trying to accept Ks into my openness, but I find that I really need to know what the alternative is and hear and see you following your own K or you just made it an insignificant argument. I donâ??t get debaters asking judges if they should call Points of Order, of course you should. The rules explain what they are for and why you should be calling them â?? Thatâ??s 100% your job. The moment you donâ??t call Point of Order may be that fantastic new argument that goes on to win the round for your opponent. Please call them, call them, call them. Be nice, use humor, and have fun. But, don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb. Do you really want to generate the reputation that comes with being a jerk? Really? Donâ??t make me use those speaker points to teach you a lesson. Now lastly Iâ??ll touch on speed. In Parli Iâ??m O.K. with it as it may actually help me stay focused. But, donâ??t use it as a strategy at the sacrifice of clarity. Clarity will always win out. When you do use speed, if I donâ??t get all your valuable ideas on my flow then in no way is it my fault. Now, SPEED in NFA-LD: Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event and that your rate of speaking should be comparable to any platform speech. I strictly adhere to that rule.  If I or the opponent calls "clear," heed that warning because as the rules state I will drop you if it needs to be asked the second time. I've tried to cover as much as possible here, but if you have questions AFTER reading this then feel free to ask me. Now, to begin the fun, here is the first part of this game â?? Hee Heee â?? If your opponent asks me something that is clearly stated here, it indicates they didnâ??t take the time to read this, then point that out by saying, â??Doesnâ??t your philosophy address that question?â? If you are correct that they are clueless about my philosophy then youâ??ll start the round knowing you have just gained a speaker point bonus! Now, let the game begin and the most intelligent win!

 

Tony Escalante - Sacramento

n/a

Toria Wilson - Chabot

n/a

Zachary Waters - SFSU

n/a