FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Kirsten Olson - Rio

Alaysia Sierra - Mt SAC

n/a

Albert Pugliese - LAVC

n/a

Alex Pineda - Solano

n/a

Alex Martinez - Biola

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Amanda Hale - IVC

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).

Andrew West - SMC

n/a

Andrew Silverstein - CSULA

I competed in parli for four years in college and before that I did four years of LD in high school.  In addition I have coached for one year in high school and one year in college.  I am one year out of competing but unfortunately I haven’t been able to judge many rounds this year.  I’ve only judged about a dozen throughout the season. I think of debate as a truth seeking event and not necessarily a gamesmanship event.  What that means is that the primary purpose of the rounds in my opinion is to learn something, winning should come second.  Coincidentally usually the person that gives the best space for learning is also usually the one that wins. I consider myself a stock issues judge and will evaluate the round in this fashion unless otherwise told to.  In that respect though, I attempt to be tabula rasa because if you tell me I should be judging in a different fashion I would be more than willing to do so. Performance and communication skills aren’t really very important to me.  Again I am being asked to evaluate the round in some fashion based off of these I am also open to that concept if you provide me a good reason. I prefer actual on-case argumentation rather than Meta debate issues.  This is because most of the time that I observe some sort of T, Spec, or Critique, I usually see no reason why the argument was necessary.  These types of procedural arguments I will evaluate if you can provide me a reason for running them other than, “I need to run a T every round.” Counterplans in all varieties can be run in front me.  I expect counterplans to be non-topical, mutually exclusive (or not permeable for some reason), and solve the affs harms unless I am told something otherwise. I will protect you during rebuttals from new arguments but I suggest you still call points of order just to make sure that if I miss something being new it will still not count in the round

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Aubrey Manahan - El Camino

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Barrett Tate - Mt SAC

n/a

Barry Regan - Grand Canyon

Bear Saulet - El Camino

Ben Porter - El Camino

Ben Bates - LACC

n/a

Berenice Hernandez - Rio

Beth Brousseau - Rio

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Orewyler - Mt SAC

n/a

Brenna Aumaier - OCC

Brianna Quinterro - Palomar

Brianna Broady - CSUN

n/a

Brooke Stevenson - OCC

Bryan Malinis - OCC

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies   2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.   I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.   FYI:  I started debating last year and competed  in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized.  Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.   I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Cindy Phu - PCC

Most Important Criteria:  As a critic, I am looking for the team that provide the best arguments in the round with logical analysis and well developed arguments (claim, ground, warrant).  First, please be sure to stay organized, link all of your refutation, and use clear impacts.  Second, I am a flow-judge so make sure that you have a clean structure and substructure.  Be sure to label all of your arguments with tag lines.  Lastly, the criteria is what I use to judge the round in addition to your voters.  It is important to link back to the criteria and explain how and why your team wins.  I love impact scenarios!  Expectation of Decorum: Debaters are expected to be nice, respectful, and able to demonstrate their ability to have fun while debating. Predispositions: No predispositions.  Best arguments overall will win my ballot. Speech/Jargon/Technical: Go as fast as you can or as slow as you can.  As long as the other team is able to flow then I don't have any issues.  However, if the other team specifically request that you slow down then I will expect a more conversational delivery.  At the end of the day, just be persuasive.  Jargon and Technical is fine.  Just make sure that you explain, link, and impact it when you use it.

DJ Kastrup - Palomar

Dana-Jean Smith - OCC

~~The first affirmative speaker must present a coherent case that addresses the stock issues of the particular debate. The first affirmative speaker must also provide a case that overcomes their prima facie burden and is topical for me to consider further argumentation. The first negative speaker’s job is to hold the affirmative accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities structuring a debate. Next, I do take kritiks and procedurals into consideration if they are well-structured and well-justified. Competitors must make both aprioi issues if they would like me to look at implications of reasoning or impacts of violating rules prior to the case when making a decision. Indeed, parliamentary debate resolutions are claims of fact, value, OR policy. Furthermore, I only take developed arguments into consideration. Claims must be backed by reasoning and evidence. Claims must also be linked to the plan, resolution, and or value of a debate. Lastly, speakers should not spread as strategy for decreasing their opponents’ comprehension of their case. While I can keep up with a fast rate of delivery, speakers must respect their opponents’ request to clear and or repeat information. If a speaker decides to speed, he or she must provide internal summaries in a normal/conversational rate of delivery.

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Das Nugent - OCC

Dave Machen - PCC

I am still fairly new to debate so it's safe to qualify me as a lay judge. If you intend to use the jargon/vocab of the event I'd appreciate it if you define/explain your understanding of the term before applying it, otherwise it very well may not have any affect on my decision. I'm looking to be persuaded by reasonable arguments which uphold the resolution and/or criteria. From what I have learned so far I can tell you that I'm not a fan of topicality. It seems whiny, especially when the language of a resolution can be so ambiguous. It is highly unlikely I will vote on a technicality (and that is not a challenge or invitation to get me to do so). Also, I don't live in a vaccuum and ocassionally read the newspaper so if you are wrong about current events or other facts that I may know I won't vote in favor of you no matter how passionate you were or how little your opponents responded to said inaccurate facts. I don't like speed-talking cause I can't write that fast. I'd rather you have fewer arguments with great substance than a slew of shallow taglines with no backbone. Plus I don't write very fast, so try and keep it casual.

David Hollingsworth - Palomar

David Kim - Mt SAC

n/a

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Elizabeth Calvert - Glendale CC

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Shaffer - PLNU

Emily Aldana - Chapman

n/a

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erin Harris - OCC

I believe delivery is as important as the arguments being made in a debate round, so I do not like speeding. I like a clean debate, and focus on stock issues. I do not like kritiks.

Erin Crossman - Rio

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn. There are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to bring them into the round. Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you CAN lose a round if you drop one little argument; if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts. I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."  A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up.  Because I try to base my decision based only on arguments that are made in the round, I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad. Likewise, you don't have to run only liberal positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or care if they are "true." In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

George Talavera - El Camino

Gil Puga - Rio

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)      I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.           I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.  If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

Gregory Pugliese - LAVC

n/a

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Helene Saghieh - IVC

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

n/a

James Matthis - Rio

Jannelle Hill - Mt SAC

n/a

Jannese Davidson - IVC

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. Coached debate as a graduate at CSULB. Am the debate coach at SCC. I am confident that I can follow your arguments as long as you are organized. Debate is not a numbers game to me, having less dropped arguments than your opponent does no mean you win.

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Parliamentary Debate Judging Philosophy   The most important thing to me is that you are having fun and treating your fellow competitors with respect. Debate is a game, cherish the time you get to play it. It will change you if you let it. I believe that the beauty of the game of debate is that we are all active participants in the quest for excellence in communication. Therefore, my role in this game is to not only analyze and filter the messages you are sending back and forth but also to play a part in the feedback loop. I believe judges do this in two ways, the first of which is through my non-verbal reactions to the speeches you are presenting. Secondly, I get to provide feedback in the form of the ballot. Both of these should be equally important to you . To make your job of persuading me easier, I have included both my general view of debate and then some of my specific likes and dislikes (or things that I neither love nor hate).   Generally speaking I believe that the debate round itself is, and should always be, entirely up to the debaters themselves. My job as the judge is to interpret and weigh the arguments that you provide, in whatever framework or structure that you all provide. It is not my job or my responsibility to dictate to you what you should argue. If that is not vague enough, I will attempt to clarify further.   The issue of rate of speech. In regards to spreading I have a few viewpoints. The first is that I don't care how fast you go and subsequently I will have no problem asking you to go a bit slower or to speak more clearly if I cannot record the arguments that you are presenting. Second, I think that spreading is only harmful when it is used as a tool of exclusion. I recognize that this inherently creates a glaring threshold problem. For me this issue can be reconciled either before the round, by asking your competitors to speak slower, or during the round by leveraging arguments like you would for anything else, or both. In the absence of a physical disability, the threshold for abusive speed is a tough burden of proof for either side.   My view on procedurals. Feel free to run any procedural you want. I think the crux of that discussion is unique to every round but usually happens in the standards debate. The one issue that really bothers me is the idea of an RVI because “they ran this as a time-suck.” I believe that procedurals are an important tool of the NEG team and default to a “Conditional” status. It is very hard to convince me that the NEG should lose on issues of Topicality or SPECS.   The Critique Debate, Performance Debate and Issues of FIAT. I consider myself a critic that welcomes criticisms and performance debate. That being said I need two questions answered within the arguments of the critique. The first question is how do I evaluate your position and weigh it against the arguments of your opponents. Second, why does your argument mean the other team automatically loses the debate round. When judging a performance round I just need to know how to articulate the ballot. Now the fun one, FIAT. While I do believe that Fiat is illusory, I also think that it is a valuable tool that allows us to role-play as policy makers. How I weigh both pre-fiat and post-fiat implications differs based on the explicit arguments and strategic decisions that are made in the round.   Good luck and be brilliant!

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jen Page - IVC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jessika Seekatz - Palomar

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joe Sindicich - Long Beach

Jordan Menard - Palomar

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Josh Kammert - CBU

Juliana French - IVC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Keith Corley - IVC

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Cheairs - PCC

n/a

Kevin Taucher - Chapman

n/a

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kim Perigo - Mesa

~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition. Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.

Lance Bubak - Solano

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Leah Freeman - Biola

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Lisa Cannon - Glendale, CA

Lisette Acevedo - Rio

Liza Rios - IVC

Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy       I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds.  I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet.

Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Judging Background             While I am new to the debate judging experience, I am not new to the overall activity.  I was an IE coach and judge for Biola University for 4 years and am currently a coach for PLNU.  In another life, I would want to be a debater, but for this life, I have been working on understanding this activity by observing real rounds in past tournaments and critiquing practice rounds at PLNU practices.   Judging Philosophy             In light of my background, I view debate as a showcase in good storytelling as well as an exercise in sound logic and argumentation.  So, tell me a coherent story: how do the elements of your case (plan/CP, ads/DAs, Ks or whatever you decide to run) show that you’re winning the round?  Tie everything together; give me the big picture.  I also like to hear clear concise <a name="_GoBack"></a>claims, evidence of research, breadth and depth of knowledge, use of logic.  If you decide to run something complicated, tell me why this is going to win you the round.               Organization is important.  Tell me the exact location on the flow that you are addressing.  Don’t expect me to bridge any gaps in your argumentation.                 Be communicative.  From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding.  Speak conversationally.   Use humor.               Argue with ethos—be professional.  Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner.  Being a shmendrik will not win you points.

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

MacLean Andrews—Point Loma   I debated in high school (PF and CX) at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane, WA and parli at Point Loma. I majored in International Studies with a concentration in Asia. I see debate as an academic game and that’s how I will judge the round. Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round. Email me (mandrews6308@gmail.com ) or send me a facebook message with any questions. <ol> <li>Speaker points <ol> <li>26-29 usually. I usually go 29, 28, 27, 27. I find speaker points to be very arbitrary. I don’t really care how well you “speak” but more how strategic the arguments in the round are made.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Critical Arguments <ol> <li>I think there are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. I am more than willing to listen to any type/kind of arguments. My biggest frustration with K debates is when I am not given a clear way to weigh the argument or a don’t have a clear ballot story. I need Impacts.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Topicality. <ol> <li>I tend to see T through a competing interpretations framework unless told so otherwise. I think competing interps is the best way for me to evaluate topicality. I typically give the Aff interp the benefit of the doubt but I voted on T a lot more last year than I thought I would. I need Impacts to your T.    </li> </ol> </li> <li>Counterplans <ol> <li>I will assume the CP is unconditional unless I’m told it’s not in the 1NC. I am personally predisposed to think that CPs should be unconditional. But, I would never vote down a team for running a conditional advocacy unless the aff gave me good reason to vote the neg down on conditionality.</li> </ol> </li> <li>Theory <ol> <li>I am willing to listen to all theory arguments as long as a team can give me a reason to vote on the position. Theory positions should have a framework/interp, arguments for your position, and voters/impacts. Simply stating fairness or education as voting issues usually isn’t enough to win. Impact out why fairness or education or (insert voter) is important. I need Impacts!</li> </ol> </li> <li>Weighing Arguments <ol> <li>I will default to Net Bens…but if you want to use an alternative weighing mechanism please explain and provide justification for it.</li> <li>I need impacts! I like when Impacts are weighed for me.  </li> </ol> </li> <li>Random Thoughts <ol> <li>Speed is great if clear. There have been very few debates in which I was not able to keep up. If I can’t understand you I will yell clear. I flow on my laptop too if that changes the way you will debate.</li> <li>The round is for the debaters. Do what you think is the best strategy to win. The best debates are when the debaters are able to implement the strategies they love. I am just as happy listening to a team read a project as I am listening to a team read 8 minutes of case turns.</li> <li>Debate should be fun.  </li> </ol> </li> </ol>

Maddie Kippen - Rio

Madison Alexander - Glendale CC

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Mark Crossman - El Camino

Mark Dorrough - Chapman

n/a

Marquesa Cook-Whearty - Palomar

Matt Volz - IVC

Matthew Swanson - Grand Canyon

After significant time being lazy I have decided to join the 21st century! My ballots are now posted online at the link bellow. You can find average speaker points/aff win percentage, my rfd and points for each round, and who I voted for in a particular round. This itty bitty url idea is stolen from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/joey.mavity">Joey</a>.  Lets face it, I am doing this because I have horrid handwriting. <a href="http://ittybittyurl.com/1N4r" target="_blank">http://ittybittyurl.com/1N4r</a>   The quick version I hope my friends would say about me. The only rules I care about: speaker times, speaker order, and the aff must be topical.  I am flexible on the last one. This is a partner event.  That means you can talk to your partner at any time but I only flow whoever the recognized speaker is for the duration of their speech time.  The logical conclusion of this is that POIs are not part of the speech time but the answer to the question is. This is a debate event.  That means I do not care how you dress or how fast you speak.  I will calculate the impacts based on probability, magnitude, and then time frame unless told differently.   This is an academic event.  That means I will vote for any argument with academic rigor. Do not bring your unwarranted disadvantages to the debate room, leave the sloppy critical literature at home, and do the research for this event.  That also means that you will be held to an academic code of ethics.  Do not fib the truth, I actually pay attention to uniqueness these days…   The long and boring version that you probably should read while doing strikes and not read before prep. Personal Overview: I am a lecturer for GCU.  I earned about 3 AAs while in my CC that I never applied for.  I did my BA in Communication with an emphasis in Social Change and Rhetoric at CSU Los Angeles.  My MA is in Communication studies from San Diego State University.     Debate Background: I did IEs and debate in high school and college.  I competed for about 3.5 years in high school in everything from congress (2 tournaments, not by choice) to policy.  I also did various IEs that I do not remember.  In college I competed off and on for 4 years in LD (which as far as I am concerned is 1-v-1 policy), parli, and platforms/limited prep events.  I coached SDSU’s policy debate team which was more than exciting for me.  I now coach at GCU and teach Public Speaking as well as Communication and the Media.   Judging: I see my position as a critic in most debates as a “super” policy maker.  I am the SCOTUS, President, and the entire Congress.  When I sign my ballot I am putting into action the plan, a competitive counter advocacy, or sticking with the sqo.   Delivery: I am a bit hard of hearing, a lot of rock music in my past, so I need you to speak up.  I can flow higher rates of delivery with little to no problem as long as you are clear.  I do not care if you stand or sit, thank me or your opponents, or wear a suit.  The debate should be about the clash of ideas, not other things.   Points of order/information: Please call points of order because I will not do it for you.  They are a tool of strategy as well as a check on the other team.  Each speech should take a question and actually try to answer it…   Theory: I only vote on articulated abuse in 99% of debates.  The 1% is when the aff just is not topical.  The aff must be topical.  I do need a clear interpretation for any theory argument.  The standards need to be leveraged as reasons to prefer the interpretation.  The voters should be impacted out; I do not know what you mean when blipping fairness and education.  RVIs are not acceptable arguments – end of story.    Counter Plans: I feel that all CPs are conditional unless the neg says otherwise.  This means you can run condo bad if you want when they do not specify.  I am still undecided on condo vs any other status for CP so any debate on that could help me make my mind up; I also can be swayed by pics good/bad.  I am sure you have a different idea of what I think dispo is so I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you think it means in your speech.  I love a good plan vs cp argument.  Perms should have a text and some explanation of what the permutation world would look like.  Do not just say intrin/sev bad, I will not vote for that, explain why they are bad, too please.    K: I love the K, that means I like to see it run well.     New Arguments: I do not like new sheets in the block unless they are germane to the debate.  Running the 1ac to bait the k in the mg is antithetical to my views of debate.  Running 3-5 procedurals in the MG is bad/lazy debate.  Debates are supposed to get smaller, not larger.  There are no backside rebuttals so I have problems with this strat.  I have gotten rid of most of my biases over time judging, but this is one I do not like.   Impacts: You should be giving me terminalized impacts.  The economy gets worse is not an impact.  A count of people dying is an impact.  These should be a comparison of timeframe, magnitude, and probability however you have decided that they matter.  This does not mean you take your argument and talk about it, it means you compare it to the other teams, too.    Clarity: You need to clearly make your arguments, do not shroud them in secrecy and then surprise me later.  I probably will not get the surprise.  You need to clearly make your arguments or I will not vote for you.  This means if you tell me to ride the wave on the K and do not explain that I probably will not vote for you.  If you say endorse the NCAA-NCFIA for the CP and do not explain it, I will not vote for it because I do not know what it is.  Just explain things clearly.  I am smart enough to figure it out, but do not think I will understand it because you do.

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

Melissa competed a number of years ago for Point Loma as an undergraduate in both CEDA and early Parli, and in most if not all IEs.  She serves as the ADOF for PLNU and works mostly with IEs and administrative tasks, so please do not assume that she is especially fond of cutting edge creative approaches if they stray from good clean clash on topical issues.  As an IE coach she values presentational skills very highly, and insists on logical consistancy, organizational strength, and a high level of respect and courtesy.  She also worked for several years as a professional trainer/business consultant and appreciates the real world skills taught by the actiivty, so choose your strategic approaches with that in mind.  Clarity, structure, and comparing impacts cleanly are your friends in pursuing her ballots.  Not fond of hyperspeed rounds.

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Moran - Rio

Nageen Nikravesh - Palomar

Nari Kim - UAV

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Neil Miller - Santiago Canyon

Neil Glines - Solano

My View of Parliamentary Debate: I enjoy a good mix of both worlds. The way in which you present your arguments is equally important as the types of arguments you present. I am open to any and all types of arguments. Speed is not an issue for me. Please be clear and try to avoid foaming at the mouth. Humor is underutilized in debate these days. A team that can have a good time while advancing their arguments will stand out in my ballot. GOV: I need a criteria or weighing mechanism in order to evaluate the round. When you provide one, unless I hear otherwise, all arguments should be weighed through it. Res analysis is an easy way to avoid muddy debates and lots of T, so use it. When you make claims support them with examples or some other type of backing. Cases that advance Tag lines with little analysis are problematic. MG: please answer opp arguments and extend your partners. It is hard to win when you get dragged off case and do little to advance the original case. PMR: When answering OPP’S arguments don’t forget to go big picture when providing your own voting issues. Please remember to flow arguments through your weighing mechanism. OPP: T, CP, K, DA, and any other type of argument you feel is appropriate are fine with me. Make sure you spend the proper time justifying them. MO if you run a new argument you might want to have a unique reason why. I want you to defend yourself from case shifts or teams that are moving targets. However running new arguments in the MO other than the above-mentioned reasons leave you open for turns by the PM in the rebuttals. LOR: Try to avoid going for the whole enchilada. Issue selection is key. Final Comments: Speaker points will be awarded to smart, witty, reasoned, and affable speaker. Points will be deducted from rude, oppressive, and offensive speakers. Above all else have a good time.

Nichole Barta - OCC

This judge has a communication background and looks for solid, well-explained arguments.  Not  a fan of speed or jargon.

Nina Koteylan - CSUN

n/a

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Ralph Velasquez - Rio

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Richard Aragon - SJDC

Ricky Recinos - Mt SAC

n/a

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Robert Holcomb - Rio

Robyn Jackson - LAVC

n/a

Rocio Zapata - Mt SAC

n/a

Roger Willis - Mt SAC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Ryan Stalder - UCLA

Judging Philosophy for Ryan Stalder of UCLA   I finished competing in Parliamentary debate in 2005 and have competed at both NPDA and NPTE. I have just recently started coaching and judging debate rounds so my philosophy is still evolving. I’m open to all types of arguments and have not been judging long enough to really hate any particular argument. I have been coached by Brandan Whearty, Mark Crossman, Danny Shea, and Bill Neesen. I may not judge exactly like these people but they were the ones I learned from so there probably aren’t that many degrees of separation. Case stuff- If you have an extreme advocacy you’ve wanted to run I might be the judge you’re looking for. Fortune favors the bold and votes for it too. I won’t player hate if you run tiny case areas, but I really appreciate teams that take risks and argue for things they really believe in. I approach debate believing that there are no rules until you create them and the reasons why I should prefer your methods of evaluation over the other teams. K’s- I think they’re cool. It would probably be a good idea to have a thesis for me to wrap my feeble judge mind around so I actually know what you’re saying. If you decide to launch into the K at a blistering pace don’t be surprised when you get dropped because I didn’t know what you were talking about. I mention this because it seems to be happening a lot lately. My best advice is to make it as simple as possible but not any simpler. Procedurals- Go nuts. Fact, Value, Policy- I am a blank slate here. The better interpretation is what I will use or if you treat it as a procedural issue I will evaluate it as such. Theory Stuff- Once again I am a blank slate. Multiple actor fiat, topical counter plans, pic’s, spec args, and everything else can be argued in front of me. Like I said I’m new to judging so I think I approach theory debates with a more open mind than judges who’ve developed really strong opinions one way or another. Speed- On a scale of 1-10 you probably shouldn’t go faster than a 7 in front of me. It’s not because I hate speed it’s just that I partied a lot in College and I’m really not that smart anymore (maybe because I wasn’t that smart to begin with) so it’s in your best interest to slow down a little and really explain your arguments clearly. I’ve noticed that my flow is a little rusty so if I have time to write your tag for an argument and also write some of your analysis underneath that you will be much better off than if you had just gone light speed. Speaker points- My average is usually a 27 and I will of course go higher if you’re awesome. It’s probably a good idea not to give your speech sitting down because I will hate you for it. It would also be nice if you could find a moment during the course of your frothy act of hyperventilation to say something funny. Thanks.

Sakeenah Gallardo - Palomar

Salvador Amador - IVC

Sarah Hinkle - CC

Sarah Sherwood - Glendale, CA

Scott Martin - Rio

Sean Connor - CSULA

I was an IE competitor and now a coach, but do not have any competitive debate experience. When judging debate I like to hear clear argumentation. I DO NOT like speed and cannot follow it. Please stick to the resolution and give me a good debate of contrasting arguments.

Sean Hansen - Biola

Philosophy as follows:    TLDR:  I will pursue objectivity as much as I can while admitting my own unique subjectivity. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote for on the flow, and accept any framework or paradigm therein. <ul> <li> I have no problem with procedurals, Ks, performance, or whatever else you want to run, as long as you give me a solid way to interact that paradigm with the other arguments in the round. </li> <li> That also goes for good policy debate; I will always prefer well-warranted positions and I will be looking for good clash and impact calculus in both constructives and rebuttals. </li> <li> I dislike being forced to do my own impact calculus, so please do so at least in the rebuttals to make my decision easier.   </li> <li> My easy cheat philosophy is that turning case / advocacy and controlling root cause is probably the easiest way to my ballot. </li> <li> I despise fact debate and have similarly volatile feelings towards value, so please run either policy or critical argumentation. </li> </ul>   Otherwise, run what you want and give justification for it and I’ll have fun too! â&tilde;º For other preferences (admitting my own subjectivity), please see below:   Procedurals and Theory: I'm a bit of a theory nerd, so few things get me more excited than good procedural theory debate, but nothing can make me more bored than bad procedural debate. <ul> <li> I default to the belief that T should be examined under competing interpretations (as evaluated by the offense under the standards debate). </li> <li> Even if you run articulated abuse, I always look to the standards debate to prefer one team over another, and think that your standards should include substantial impact framing for offense. </li> <li> I would always prefer if NEG runs competing interp or even potential abuse and then ran case turns rather than articulated abuse, which then requires me to sit through an additional 7 min of arguments that don't link (see delivery notes on me being bored). </li> <li> That being said, if you just run apriori fairness and education as voters, I will default to articulated abuse and look for the requisite arguments. </li> <li> I also think good theory usually has a clear brightline for the interpretation that the other team can meet / violate. </li> <li> I admire creativity in running new responses to procedurals, but am familiar with traditional responses as well. </li> <li> I don't vote on RVIs for T, because I don't think being topical is inherently a reason to vote for the AFF. I may consider RVIs on other procedurals if they are well-warranted and impacted, but time skew arguments in general usually indicate that either you or your partner misappropriated time during your speech to allow for the skew.  </li> <li> Not a fan of spec arguments, but you could always change my mind by reading one that doesn’t sound unnecessary. Bear Saulet says it best: “Your Spec argument is presumably to protect your normal means-based link arguments, so just read those arguments on case.” </li> </ul>   Case debate: <ul> <li> LOC’s that allocate time and effort to the line-by-line on case make a happy Sean (although if you have awesome off-case that require more time, then you make the strategical choice – it won’t hurt ballot or speaks if you win on the flow). </li> <li> Especially great if it clashes over controlling uniqueness and link solvency. </li> <li> I think impact defense is a lost art and can grant you unique strategic ground in the round. </li> </ul>   CP: <ul> <li> I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. </li> <li> I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). </li> <li> I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. </li> <li> My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). </li> <li> Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt. </li> </ul>   K: I am a huge fan of good critical debate, and enjoy hearing new arguments. <ul> <li> Your framework should give clear indications of weighing arguments in round, as this is the first place I look to evaluate my decision. </li> <li> Since I think critical argumentation can be some of the most important argumentation to happen in our league, I also think your alt and alt solvency need to be solid. If you tell me to vote for you to uphold a certain ideology and win that I should do so, be assured that I will do whatever your alt asks, so make it worthwhile. </li> <li> Solvency needs to clearly articulate what it solves for and how. Blipping “Solvency 1: the personal becomes the political. Solvency 2: radical change is the only solution” are lazy arguments and can be answered with an equal lack of verve. </li> <li> I am most familiar with the literature base for rhetoric and media studies, post-structuralism, post-modernism, persuasion, and liberal education studies, but I love to learn new perspectives and ideas, so by all means run a project in front of me. </li> <li> In the last year, I think my ballots in K rounds (either given from AFF or NEF) tended to be split evenly for and against, so I’m just as open to any type of answers to K. </li> <li> You should probably explain how perms of methodological advocacies with policy plan texts function (and as always, provide a net benefit) </li> <li> I like clear Role of the Ballots that are read twice so I can be sure what my interaction is with the critique. </li> <li> As per procedurals, I do enjoy creative responses to Ks that provide depth of thought and clash. </li> </ul>   Performance debate: Quite honestly, I have similar judging paradigms and habits when judging performance / project / narrative positions as I do judging critical positions, so you can mostly see above for my preferences. I do find that the framework and theoretical debate becomes significantly more important in these rounds. I am open to hearing theory blocks or alternative advocacies from the opposing team in response.   Impact Calculus: <ul> <li> Good impact comparison MUST happen in order for me to resolve debate, including prioritization (with standards) of magnitude over probability, timeframe over reversibility, etc. </li> <li> Must happen at least in the rebuttals, is probably also a good idea in the constructives. </li> <li> I tend to prefer impacts of probability and timeframe over magnitude and reversibility, and have found myself voting more and more for the most proximal impacts (which are usually systemic in my mind) if no clash happens to tell me which I should prefer. </li> <li> If no calculus happens, I will prefer the “worst” impact, but at that point I think your rebuttals aren't doing a very good job because I have to assert more of my own assumptions into the round.  </li> </ul>   Delivery / Speaker Points: <ul> <li> I don't mind speed, as long you are articulate enough for me to understand you. </li> <li> I will call clear if you are inarticulate, but that has happened exactly once, because I had a sinus infection and couldn’t hear out of one ear. </li> <li> Speaker points tend to be focused on your argumentation, with considerations of your delivery proper a secondary concern. </li> <li> I generally reward between 23-30 <ul> <li> A 23 usually looks like: weak argumentation, poor strategy, inconsistent articulation / trying to speed when you can’t, and bad time allocation. </li> <li> A 30 usually looks like: exceptional refutation that combines great defense and offense, top-notch time efficiency, clarity, and outstanding strategy / round awareness. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I rarely protect against new arguments unless it’s an outround; I will be flowing, it’s your job to call arguments to my attention (plus I think that points of order can be of significant strategical value as well). </li> <li> I think partner communication is not only desirable but vital in this sport, so by all means communicate in-round with your partner. I will only flow what comes from the designated speaker’s mouth. </li> <li> I am trying to work on my nonverbal expressions in round so that you can keep track of how much I like / dislike your arguments before I release my RFD. <ul> <li> If I think you are going for the wrong argument I will be frowning at you a lot, with lots of furrowed eyebrows and extended eye contact (unusual since I’m usually looking at my flow). </li> <li> If I drop my pen, it’s usually because I think you’re repeating an argument and hope that you’ll move on, otherwise I’ll get bored. </li> <li> If I’m really Really REALLY bored, you will see lots of dropping of my pen and looking around the room. </li> <li> If I look at the team who isn’t speaking during the rebuttals, I probably think the speaker is making a new argument and I’m waiting to see if someone will call it. </li> <li> A quick head nod means I like your argument; a continuous head nod means I understand and you should move on. </li> </ul> </li> <li> I don’t care whether you sit or stand; I will (usually) be looking at my flow. </li> </ul>   Things that I don’t enjoy / make my decision harder / lose you speaker points: <ol> <li> Being rude / racist / patriarchal / homophobic / etc. in your rhetoric. </li> <li> Neglecting impact calculus in the rebuttals (AUGH). </li> <li> Politics DAs that assume your bill is “top of the docket” without any reason it should be. I’m going to quote K. Calderwood’s philosophy on this: “If you read a politics disadvantage that is not “the issue of our time” then you should specify the bill’s status and give some background about the bill at the beginning of the disadvantage.  On several occasions this year, I have heard politics disadvantages that were apparently on the “top of the docket” that I have never heard before.  I consider myself well read on the news, and I doubt the veracity of all, or nearly all, of the claims I have heard about the “top of the docket”. </li> </ol>   Again, a caveat to all the preceding observations and a return to the overview: I will vote for you if you win on the flow with well-warranted offense and good impact / framework calculus.

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

Sherana Polk - OCC

First, I like arguments that just make logical sense.  Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic.  However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions.  Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it.  I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response.   Second, delivery is important.  The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable.  If you are spreading then you are less understandable.  If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you.  Please be organized and signpost where you are at.  If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you. Third, I think that there are three types of debate.  So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate.  Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me.  So run the proper case for the proper resolution.  If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there.  I also think that Gov should always stay on topic.  So if Gov is non-topical then run T.  I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue.  If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose.  So just argue the topic.  I am willing to listen to Kritiques.  I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue.  However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary.  So run it at your own risk.      Overall, I really like debate.  If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge.  So do your best!

Simon Kern - CSUN

n/a

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Stephanie Eisenberg - PCC

n/a

Stephen Thomas - CBU

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Sydney Awakuni - PLNU

Sydney Awakuni  2013 Background/Experience: <ul> <li>4 years of college experience- 2 years at El Camino college & 2 years at Point Loma Nazarene University – parliamentary debate, NFA-LD, impromptu, extemporaneous speaking, platform</li> <li>2 years of HS coaching experience at Narbonne High School</li> <li>BA Communication Point Loma Nazarene University</li> </ul> Core Values After competing in speech and debate for four years at a variety of levels/tournaments I’ve decided these are values I tried to uphold in rounds and would hope you would too! <ul> <li>Respect your teammates (they are like your family), opponents (how would you like to be treated?), judge, and any audience members.</li> <li>Play & Compete. To me debate is a game of intellectual batter so be fun and strategic!</li> <li>Signpost. This is crazy important. If you don’t tell me where an argument goes I will just place it best I can and I unfortunately don’t have mind reading abilities.</li> <li>Tell me how you me as a judge to view the round and WEIGH the arguments for me. Tell me what you want prioritized.</li> <li>I will do my absolute best to follow you, understand what you are saying, and make the best decision possible- good luck!</li> </ul> General Information/Questions You’ll Probably Ask Me: How I View the Round <ul> <li>I tend to default to the role of a policy maker. This means framing the debate in terms of magnitude and timeframe are really important to me. I also love it when debaters answer the question of “why”. So if you are going to say the world explodes- statistics/reasons of how we get there are crucial (aka: strong links/internals are your friend)</li> </ul> Speed <ul> <li>I like speed. I think it is a fabulous tool to be able to utilize. If I can’t flow you/think you’re going too fast I’ll try to tap my pen or something to let you know.</li> <li>I don’t like it when speed is used for the sole purpose of excluding your opponent-allowing them to engage in the round is more fun for you anyway. I won’t drop you because of spreading out your opponent but I may give you lower speaker points</li> </ul> CP <ul> <li>I think this is a great tool and usually a smart move on the part of the negative- if you are running a K you better have an alternative! Tell me why/how the CP is competitive and mutually exclusive. I don’t care if it is a topical CP because I view plan/affirmative case as one possible representation of the resolution.</li> <li>Perms- I always ran multiple perms &this think you can too. Perms with solvency or advantages are super strong (like you are saying actually vs. theoretically both happen).</li> </ul> Procedurals/Theory Arguments <ul> <li>Again I like these/used them frequently. I don’t usually vote on an RVI unless something crazy abusive happened.</li> </ul> The K <ul> <li>I will try my hardest to view the round from a more philosophical position if that’s what you want me to do. I find discussions about ethics/culture interesting (personally from a theological standpoint)- but I am NOT an expert. If you want the debate to be in that world please take the time to explain how these arguments function and how I ought to weigh them. This is not to say I don’t like the critical debate- I just didn’t debate that way, but I do understand the fundamentals.</li> <li>If you want to run a K and that’s a tool you like to use- feel free though- just note the above concerning my knowledge base of the position.</li> <li>There have been unique K rounds happening recently and I’ll be forthcoming to say I don’t like rounds where individuals are called out (keep it in the round) or when clothing attire is removed- please don’t do that.</li> </ul>   So have a good time in the round and also play to be competitive! If you have any further Qs please ask me. I’m new to being on the opposite end of the table as a judge so this philosophy may be subject to change.

Thom Karlsen - LACC

n/a

Tiffani Smith - IVC

Tim Milosch - Biola

Vanessa Spear - Grossmont

Victor Cornejo - Rio

Victor Rose - CBU

Kritik – I’ll listen and give reasonable ground, but the framework and alternative need to be incredibly solid otherwise I just hear complaints that are unstructured without a reason to vote, I believe in their legitimacy and value but often times execution is lacking Topicality – Excellent, linguistic challenges offer new perspectives D/A – Impact calculus and two world alternatives in the last rebuttals are the most persuasive types of policy/value arguments Speed – Definitely get through your speeches and finish your arguments, if your opponents or myself have trouble following you that is no bueno, yes opposition and myself will clear you Sportsmanship – We’re all here as members of the same community, be polite, enjoy the tournament, and create a positive environment that fosters education

Willie Washington - IVC

robert e g black - CSULA

I competed in IEs and debate for four years and started coaching/judging last year. I like speeches to be clear--i.e. tell me where you're going at the beginning, tell me where you've been at the end, and you better have gone there in between. I competed in every event--interp more than platform or limited prep--at least once and have judged them all as well. So, do what you want to do within the usual guidelines and entertain and enlighten me and you will do well on my ballot. For interps specifically, I have been known to value performance over message, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a point to the piece you're doing and why you're doing it. As far as debate goes, I try my best to go by the flow which mean a) speeding is not in your best interest because if I cannot keep up and your argument doesn't get onto my flow it won't help you in the end, and b) I will accept most any position you present. Still, I don't like standard generic DAs; for example: politics--I think any Plan fiats away most, if not all, political capital arguments. Since I do try to go by the flow, I also will not usually dismiss automatically new arguments in rebuttals--I want you to catch them and call a point of order; if you can't catch it, I don't want to do the work for you. I prefer you have fun more than be technically perfect, that you make sense more than you fit the strict framework of debate. But, honestly, doing the latter can seriously help the former and, if you're doing it right, you should be able to do both.

2013 PSCFA Fall Championships