FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Chapman

n/a

Sarah Sherwood - PLNU

Aaron Sabbas - Palomar

Abigail Watkins - IVC

Abraham Pan - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Adrienne Collins - Saddleback

Al Primack - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Alaya McKinney - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Alex Martinez - Biola

Alex Hsu - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Alex Paez - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Allen Amundsen - SJDC

Amber Lundy - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Amy Fram - Moorpark

n/a

Amy Wangsadipura - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Ana Sahagun - Cerritos College

Anasheh Gharabighi - CSUN

n/a

Anibal Jimenez - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Annie Kincade - Mesa

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Arlene Galarza - Azusa

Background: I competed in parliamentary debate and NFA-LD for three years in college. This is  my first year helping to coach in parliamentary debate and LD. I have judged around 70 or so rounds this year. Decision Making: I do not have a strict and set decision making philosophy. Stock-Issue is a very strong way to present a case in parliamentary debate, but for the most part I try to be very open and wait for you to tell me how you are going to run the round. Presentation/communication skills: Debaters should be dressed in business attire, if you’re not, I will-unconsciously- take you less seriously. In this past year, I have spent more time with the Speech side of Forensics and I do tend to pay more attention to the way you speak and overall presentation. Although the way you speck is not as important as what you say, it does hold some weight on my ballot.  In Round: Competitors should be polite and respectful of one another. Being condescending, rude, or laughing at your opponents- no matter how ridiculous their arguments may seem or are- is not okay! This semester, I have dropped a team for this kind of behavior.  If you are the second speaker, you need to extend across your partners responses and arguments or else they are dropped arguments. Arguments should all be impacted to a terminal impact. Please, always call points of order in the last speeches or I will flow them. Please time each other, just to make sure everyone stays honest. I like two world scenarios and 2-4 clear voting issues. I don’t time road maps. Organization and sign posting is key to winning. Tell me exactly where to flow your argument and responses, or else I will just quickly guess and put it anywhere, which is not good. Procedurals: I will vote on Topicality and other procedurals (tricot, vagueness press) but you need to show articulated abuse. You show articulate abuse by running your Disadvantages and then having the Aff de-link them. I do not like RV's, I think it is the neg’s ground to run theory arguments.   I tend not to vote for topical counterplans in parli, but I will listen to all arguments. If you are planning to run a counter plan don’t run it in the last 30 seconds of your speech. An effective strategy for running a counter plan is by first running a disadvantage that the Aff bites and that your plan doesn’t, and additionally, counter plan must solve for the entire Aff case. You should take any POI’s after the counter plantext is read. I also, tend to dislike K’s because, usually I hear K's that are just non -unique disadvantages, and they just do not offer any real world solvency.  Speed: Don't do it! Debate is a fundamentally an educational activity, therefore, everyone in the round should be able to understand all of your well-structured arguments.  Additionally, if your opponents “clear you” or ask you to “slow down” and you don’t – I will be upset and drop you! Time management is important, if it is a round with few arguments and you feel like you have effectively covered everything you don’t need to spend 5 minutes just repeating your arguments. But, if you need the time, please use it! Ultimately, I will try to keep my biases and prejudices away from the round and I will listen to any and all arguments. Lastly, have fun and actually being funny is always a good thing!

Ashley Knuckles-Cuevas - Palomar

Ashley Givens - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Ashley Furrell - CSUN

n/a

Awndrea Lassiter - Rio

Balthazar Gonzalez - Rio

Barrett Tate - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Beverly Reilly - Rio

Bianca Nasser - Saddleback

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Tanielu - OCC

Brandon Rivera - Palomar

Section 1: General Information I competed for Northern Arizona University and am now coaching at San Diego State University. This is my second year judging collegiate debate and my first year coaching. My background is in Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, and Ethnic Studies. I was a “kritik” debater in my undergrad, but I would appreciate if you did what you know best. The biggest thing for me in debate was to have a critic with an open mind and the ability to listen. I hope to facilitate this role for debaters in the community and give people the opportunity.     Quick Notes:   DO WHAT YOU DO. Just because I know critical arguments more does not mean that I want to see those debates all the time. This is especially true if a team deviates from what they are good at in order to try and please me. Whether its “first strike” or “reject white civil society”, I will vote if I think you win the round.   I vote on examples within the debate more than a certain style of argument. By example I mean a historical, social, popular culture, or another type of event that helps to describe how your argument functions. “Dehum leads to otherization and is the logic of genocide” is not an example.   “Perm do both” is a borderline acceptable perm text. If you read these perms you roll the dice, especially if the other team points out that the alt/cp says vote neg. I know it takes time to read out both plan text, but I think it makes for the most stable perm debate.   Just because its dropped doesn’t mean I have to vote. I vote for well articulated and impacted arguments. Usually when something is dropped this means the other time gets to impact out their argument and prove why that argument is the most important in the round. Simply extending a drop does not guarantee “game over”.      Section 2: Specific Inquiries  Please describe your approach to the following.   1.       Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 25-30   2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   I think that this is the type of argument that I know the most. I like critical arguments, but think that they require a few levels of analysis. I require a stable interpretation on the framework in order to give me something to evaluate the round. I do not believe that you “win framework = winning the round”, but do think that the framework gives you access to the impacts of your critical argument. I also prefer to have some explanation of your method, especially when the case is much more performative. I think that the affirmative can run a critical argument. The affirmative can both affirm the topic in a critical way, as well as read an affirmative that deals with larger social issues. Regardless of the route you take as the affirmative, the framework must justify the method and the viewpoint that you want me to evaluate the round based on.   I know there is a growing trend towards arguments that “function in multiple worlds” and often contradict each other. My personal disposition on the issue is that I think “contradictory” arguments make the debate confusing and I do not get why severing rhetoric is “ok”, even it is key to competitive flex. That being said, this is debate and if you have good reasons why being contradictory is good, I will vote.   3.       Performance based arguments…   This is another type of argument that I ran as a competitor and am generally familiar with. You need to justify your position and explain how your performance functions. I generally see all debate as a performance, and therefore it is the responsibility of the team to tell me why I should prefer one performance over another.   4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I really like theory and think that it is one of the more under utilized positions in parli. I need in round proven abuse to vote, but will also listen to arguments about potential abuse as a voter. I generally think that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate a procedural, but am open to different weighing mechanisms. I think the most important part to theory is making sure that teams have impacts built into the standards debate, and weigh those impacts against other claims made in the debate. I do not do work for you on procedurals. If you do not provide a counter interpretation, or just “cross apply case” I will not infer what you mean by that strategically.   5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?   I think that the “PIC” debate is one of those things that debaters need to resolve in round and is largely contingent on the interpretations of the theory debate. I think that the opposition should give the status of the CP regardless. I think that most perms are best when they are functionally competitive. I have a very limited understanding of what text comp is and why it is important. If this is one of your go to arguments, please clearly explain what you mean and how you think that functions.   I did not read to many counterplans in my day. This means that if I hear something like consult, delay, “cheeto-veto”, I am less prone to know why so many people in the community do not like these positions. In other words, please be clear on your theory if you think these types of counter plans are “cheating”.    On the perm I require a perm text. This is not a written copy of the perm, but the aff should read the entirety of the aff followed by the parts of the negative that they want to perm. This helps me evaluate how the perm functions and increases the likelihood I vote. If a team says perm “Do both”, and does not explain what do both means, I am less likely to vote for those types of perms.   6.       Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)   I can see this being useful, especially if a more experienced team is willing to let a less experienced team have a look. I don’t have a predisposition but don’t waste time and get me in trouble for making the tournament late.   7.       In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?   I will look at the framework level of the debate in order to see what lenses and prioritizations I should put on the impacts. From there I will usually default to impact comparison made in the debate round. I do not necessarily think that procedurals come before a kriticism, but if no one collapses or weighs impacts, I would probably look at the procedural first. Sorry this section is not more helpful.   8.       How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?   If this is the situation that happens, no one will be happy. I do not have a general rule on these issues, but would probably weigh large-scale flash point impacts over theoretical concepts like “dehumanization”. I think debaters should avoid this situation at all cost, and can do so by making internal link claims in the implications. For example, if one team says that dehumanization is the root cause of all violence and the other says “nuke war”, I would vote for the “dehumanization” impact it comes before all violence.

Brianna Quinterro - Palomar

Brianna Broady - CSUN

n/a

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate.  Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program.  I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach.  I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard.  I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging.    My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.   I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy.  I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had.    I do not look at debate as a game.  The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness.  I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.   I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea?  Tell me where I’m voting and why.   Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…   Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time.  Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.   Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making   Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it.  Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win.  This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot.  Be persuasive.  You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose.  Moderation is a good thing here. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important.  Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them.  Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.   Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for   I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages.  I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job.  I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech.   I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job.   Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant.  Tell me what matters in the round.  Tell me what wins.  Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot.    <hr />

Bryan Malinis - OCC

CJ Sodikov - Grand Canyon

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Cara Holmes - Saddleback

Casey Horine - PSCFAJudges

n/a

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

Christian Ortiz - Rio

Christian Green - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Christina Engberg - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Christina Bustos - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Christina Poladian - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Christine Cummings - Santiago Canyon

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.

Collette Blumer - Fullerton Col

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Courtney Gammariello - Biola

Cynthia Lavariere - Cerritos College

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.

Daniel Wisth - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Testing 123

Danny Iberri-Shea - Palomar

This is from the 2006 NPTE. Danny Iberri-Shea NAU Parli Debates judged this year: 60+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: 10+ Years Judging Debate: 4 Years Competed in Debate: 8 What School Competed at: L.A. Valley Moorpark NAU Making Decisions: '--My decision is based on my approach to decision-making though I do consider adjusting for what the debaters argue I am fine with games but please explain/justify what you are attemting to do.' Decision-making Approach: '--I focus on the stock issues (the government needs to show significance/harms inherency solvency disadvantages or for fact-value topics value-criteria and contentions) Solving for harms is more important to me than having groovy advantages. Significance is a stock issue.' Assessing Arguments: 'Weak arguments can be dropped without penalty. Weak positions should be promptly kicked. You can t have your cake and eat it too! <img alt="" src="http://www.net-benefits.net/images/smilies/smile.gif" />' Presentational Aspects: 'Any delivery rate is fine so long as it is clear. I don t like seeing speed used as a tool of oppression but then again I don t expect any novices at the NPTE. Have fun!' Strong Viewpoints: 'I find economic theory painfully boring. If the topic forces you to argue economics I would rather hear the human/labor/environmental perspectives that relate to economic theory.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I love theory and jurisdictional stuff. That being said I feel that way too many neg teams rely on PICS these days as a means of avoiding critical and deeply challenging positions to cases. I will listen to most any position including why topical counterplans justify voting aff.' Other Items to Note: 'Not all claims warrant a plan. Think about what the resolution is asking you to prove. Be topical. Create unique burdens/criteria to prove each unique claim. Plese stand up for all questions and all speeches (this is only polite). Have fun be respectful and please avoid excessive talking while the other team is presenting arguments.

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 Webb - PSCFAJudges

n/a

David Ezra - UCLA

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

David Brown - IVC

Daynie Rivera - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Destiny Leyvas - Grand Canyon

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Dymond Galvan - CBU

Ed Martell - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Edwin Tiongson - UCLA

Elizabeth Serrao - Rio

Emily Barack - Grand Canyon

Eric Rey - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Erick Gaona - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Erik Villoria - PSCFAJudges

n/a

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 - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Esther Solis Becerra - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Frank Cuevas - Palomar

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.

Gary Rybold - UCLA

Gazelle Moinzadeh - UCLA

Genisse Aguilar - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Gil Puga - Rio

Haley Courtney - PLNU

I competed for Point Loma Nazarene University for 3 years and have been judging and coaching at Point Loma for 3 years.  First and foremost, this is your debate round and I will listen to anything if you can show me why it is relevant to the round. I love learning, so even if it is a position I am not familiar with, I will always do my very best to engage your arguments.   I like procedurals and have no problem voting on them if they are run well. I’m down with rules of the game. If you’re breaking them, tell me why it’s okay to do so. If the other team is breaking the rules in a way that makes it impossible for you to engage in the round, please tell me about it.   I do like Kritiks. I will listen to them and engage them, but I will not fill in the blanks for you while you run them.  I really appreciate knowing that teams genuinely care about the positions they are running, and this especially comes out in criticisms. It bothers me when critical discussions are devalued or dismissed in rounds because teams refuse to try to engage. That being said, I understand that debate is a game, but I also would really love that if you’re running something, it matters to you. That’s just a personal preference.  Just like in a straight up round, if I don’t understand how your criticism works or why it links, or most importantly, how you are actually gaining any solvency (in round or otherwise, just depends what you’re going for), I won’t vote on it. If there is no obvious link, you’ll probably have to work a little harder to convince me of your ability to have that particular discussion in that particular round, but don’t let that stop you from going for it.   That being said, I really value creativity and strategy. Have fun with debate. No matter what you run, critical or straight up, impact weigh. If you’re going to run an out of the ordinary position, just explain why it matters and how to vote on it. Show me why you’re winning in a tangible way. Impact calculus is super important. Tell me exactly where and why I should be voting for you.     Speed: I’m cool with speed. I have no problem keeping up with speed, but you need to be clear. If I can’t physically hear/understand you, I’ll let you know, but if I or the other team has to clear you and you make no change, it’s irritating. At that point, I can’t get all your arguments because I literally don’t know what you’re saying. Don’t use speed to exclude your opponents.   That being said, pay attention to my nonverbals; I’m expressive, I can’t help it. Mostly, I really want to know and understand what you’re talking about! If I don’t understand your argument initially, I will probably look at you while processing it and trying to understand it. Use that to your advantage, just clarify briefly.   Finally, please read me your plan text, counterplan text, or alt text at least twice so that I can get it down. It is extremely hard for me to weigh arguments being made for or against a particular text if I don’t know what you are doing. If you want to write me a copy, that would be cool, too.

Heather Kelly - OCC

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Holly Griffin - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Hugh Lehane - IVC

J Alex Marquez - PSCFAJudges

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - ELAC

n/a

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

Jane Nazzal - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Janneth Flores - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jason Jordan - Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine.   *make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or ‘be.’    *Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.

Jason Hong - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jay Arntson - IVC

Jen Page - IVC

Jenna Lohse - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jeremy Murphy - Palomar

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jin Nakama - Mesa

~~As a baseline, I might best be characterized as traditional debate theorist and an ideologue-critic with a symbolic touch. My views can and do change, but there are some things you might like to know about me how I approach debate as an activity… I take a good flow, but I won’t allow my flow to bind me. I will vote on and off the flow in whatever way I think will allows me to render a true and fair decision. As debaters, your role is to debate the resolution and my role is to determine the outcome of a round. I take a humanistic view to debate, and I expect arguments and cases presented are done so in a manner that connects with our experiences. The process of argumentation and evaluation does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the context of experience. This does not mean that arguments must conform to my worldview, but rather, that arguments should be grounded in the world around us. If you’re going to paint a picture of a different world, that’s fine too. In general, it should just make sense within the narrative you choose. #Policy Where the resolution stipulates a call to action, I adopt a stock issues paradigm and artificial presumption. Stock issues answer the questions needed to resolve questions regarding the adoption of the resolution—and so, the Affirmative team must affirm all five stock issues (Inherency, Significance/Harms, Solvency/Advantages) in order to secure the round. Failure to bring a prima facie case, will result in my defaulting to the Opposition team on presumption. Because of the nature of parliamentary debate and its limited prep, my thresholds aren’t as stringent as they are in traditional policy formats, but please know that the less time you spend laying out and defending each stock issue, the weaker they will be and the easier it will be for the Opposition team to negate them. You need only lose one to lose the round. Absent a specific call to action, I will look to Framework first before I look to line-by-line argumentation. The Resolution should remain the focus of the debate, and any impacts on cause should be both reasonable and probable outcomes. Extremism, terminal impacts or arguments that are morally bankrupt hold little sway over me, however, if you think you can argue these points with success, I will listen to what you have to say, albeit with a raised brow. Whether or not the Affirmative team has met their burden upholding the resolution will determine the outcome of the round. #Fact/Value In F/V rounds, I look to the body and quality of arguments and weighing analysis. Arguments should go to the probative and have a clear link to the criterion and how that proves or disproves the resolution. Remember, facts and examples are not arguments. They should be used to support your arguments. #Procedurals I look here first as these are a priori issues. Generally, these should be employed as a means of demonstrating in-round abuse, though if you think you have good enough reason to run it based on competing interpretations, by all means, go for it. I vote on issues of fairness before the impacts of case because fairness as a practice extends beyond the round while the impacts of case are limited to just that round. #Speaker Points Speaker points and ranks are determined based on style and conduct. I was taught to debate traditionally, and I proceed accordingly. When the round begins, address me directly and not the other team during -all- points of interaction. Please stand when you speak.  Partner-to-partner communication is strongly discouraged, however you may pass notes. I value etiquette very much and I am likely to punish any perceived hostility by deducting speaker points with liberty. #Speed I view debate as an art and practice in persuasion. Parliamentary debate provides little justification to speak at nigh unintelligible speeds. Speak to me as you would your grandfather, though please not so much as though I were a golden retriever. #Final Thoughts I believe judges have three major functions in this activity; Educator, Adjudicator, and Trustee. As Educator, a duty to help guide and provide perspective on the event; as Adjudicator, the task of deciding the outcome of a round; and as Trustee, the responsibility of preserving and protecting the integrity of the activity as a whole. So, even if you win on my flow, but I find you sorely lacking in good conduct, you will lose on my ballot. I have a great love for this activity and oral tradition. I will judge your round with enthusiasm and give you my very best, without exception. My request of you is that you please give me yours. I’m delighted by good company, so if you see me wandering around during tournaments, feel free to say hello and have a chat! Happy debating and good luck!

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joey Pierre - PSCFAJudges

n/a

John Vitullo - Mt SAC

n/a

Jonathan Zoltan - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jordan Salfity - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jordan Menard - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Josh Kammert - Azusa

Background I have coached for five years; formats have included Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and IPDA. I competed for four years prior to that in LD, Parli, and one tournament of CEDA. This year I have judged something like 60 rounds. None of this should really matter to you except to clarify that, yes, I am intimately familiar with the rules of debate. Approach to Decision-Making General Concepts I have a niceness paradigm; this means I can -and will- drop someone for being a jerk to their opponent. Obviously ad hominem is a definitively poor choice, but I'm looking for enlightening discussion not destructive manipulation -and there is a difference; in fact, if I'm your judge, just be as polite as you can to your opponents and the topic; I'm your audience, adapt to me. I loathe speed; I find it detrimental to an activity that is supposed to be focused on effective communication when there is literally no other moment in life where speaking at 250+ words per minute will be of benefit (it will, as a matter of fact be of great detriment since people will just tune you out). For me, Debate is a classroom, not a game; it is meant for education on a topic, not for being manipulative to achieve a win. Yes, I know I just annoyed 85% of you, I'm good with that. :) Argument Specifics As far as arguments go: I will buy just about anything, though I have yet to hear a Kritik that was not a non-unique DA in disguise, and that's bad. Don't run non-unique DA's and call them K's, I won't buy that. I'd also like to echo the words of Gary Ribold when he says, "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)." Oh and here's a big one: NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS; if you are both arguing to do as the resolution says, then I am only left to vote to affirm which means the Neg may have won the debate but the ballot will go to the Aff because the Neg convinced me to vote for the resolution to pass! I love Stock-Issue Debate and On-Topic Debate, Meta-Debate is boring. That said, if you truly feel you're being abused, feel free to run procedurals, but there had better be articulated abuse. My goal in every round of debate is twofold: Have Fun, and Learn Something. Do that while keeping to the above recommendations, and we'll get along famously.

Josh Miller - LAVC

n/a

Juan Victorio - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Judea Mendez - Rio

Judge from Hack 3 - IVC

Jules French - IVC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Karen Nishie - Vanguard

<h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> Question 1 : Background of the critic Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate.  DOF at Vanguard University.   Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job. Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.   Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive.  Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points. Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.   One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech. Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you. <hr />

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kayla Graney - IVC

Kayla Cook - PLNU

Kayla competed for four years in college at Fullerton College then PLNU, after learning the activity debating in home school debate for several years.  Well accomplished in the theoretical underpinnings of the activity.  Graduated Spring of 2014, but spent that semester studying abroad in Ireland. Is fine with most well delivered and supported argumentative approaches, but appreciates clarity and civility at all times.  Moderate speed is fine, but don't get unclear or messy.

Keith Corley - PLNU

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kelly Mejia - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Ley - Rio

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kristoff Misico - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Lawrence Muller - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Leo Acosta - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Les Belikian - LACC

n/a

Lewis Robinson - GCCAZ

n/a

Lexi Popineeau - Vanguard

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Liza Rios - Compton

Hello! Welcome to my Debate Gospel!  <ol> <li>I am Communication judge so it should come as no surprise that I value time honored traditions such as eloquence and charisma when speaking in public.</li> <li>You will lose my ballot if you spread.</li> <li>I do not time road maps.</li> <li>Tag-line and sign post the heck out of your speeches!  I love structure! This will make it a pleasure for me to flow your arguments.</li> <li>I will vote on procedurals if you can convince me that your claims are legitimate.</li> <li>Impacts are weighted heavily on my ballot.</li> <li>Regarding partner communication: do not upstage your partner while he/she is presenting his/her speech. A few interjections are fine but overall I should be hearing mostly from the main speaker. Write notes if need be.  If you keep speaking for your partner, this communicates to me that you do not trust your partner…so why should I trust your partner? Manage your ethos! When your opponents are speaking, quietly communicate with your partner or write notes to each as to not draw attention to your side.</li> <li>Be respectful and classy! That makes me happy! :)</li> <li>Do not drop arguments.</li> <li>I will not debate for you. If, for example, new arguments are brought up in rebuttal speeches, it is not my job to make note of this.</li> <li>I value truth in what is spoken in a debate.</li> </ol> Looking forward to seeing you in elimination rounds!! Liza A. Rios

Loren Schwartzwalter - GCCAZ

n/a

Lorena Marquez - Cerritos College

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

Lyndsey Christoffersen - Chapman

n/a

Manoah Marton - PLNU

Mark Torres - Rio

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Marlene Dominguez - Rio

Matt Hinkle - IVC

Matt Volz - Santiago Canyon

I have an extensive beanie baby collection and appreciate it whenever people work beanie babies into their speech.

Matt Clifford - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Maxwell Colburn - Saddleback

Maya Harmon - USC

n/a

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Middleton - Utah

Michael Middleton Judging Philosophy A Quotation: “The present situation is highly discouraging” –Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari A Haiku: Debate is Awesome Judging Makes Me Cry Softly Do I weep in vain? Some things to consider (when debating in front of me): 10.  I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion 9.    I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.  You will like it less if you don’t. On the other hand, I will like it more. 8.    I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures. 7.    I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you don’t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate. 6.    I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team. 5.    I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.  Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy. 4.    I am a participant in the round also.  While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points. 3.    Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time. 2.    Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesn’t really equal anything. 1.    Debate is not life.  Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.  I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this. 0. Have Fun

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Dana - GCCAZ

n/a

Michael Olivier - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Michelle Armstrong - Palomar

Minadora Moldoveanu - Cerritos College

Monica Guzman - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Naseem Akramian - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Neil Miller - Santiago Canyon

Nichole Barta - OCC

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

Nick Russell - Long Beach

Judge Philosophy for Nick Russell DOF @ CSU, Long Beach Years in Debate: 20 Rounds Judged this Year: not many Months without a Weekend: 1.5 I view debate as a laboratory for democracy, by which I mean that debate provides an opportunity for students to become agents of positive social transformation. As such, my view is that debate should be a forum for debaters to develop a voice to express the arguments about which you are passionate; it’s your opportunity to positively transform society. And it’s not my place to tell you how to do that (e.g., run a project, a plan, or a pomo). That being said, I’m convinced that in order to transform publics, you must persuade your audience. And there are things that make arguments and debaters more or less persuasive as I audience them. <ol> <li>I think that human beings are different from one another. And, for this whole democratic experiment to succeed, I think we need to be respectful of differences. I may be wrong and you may be right, but for debate to work, there has to be space for a dialogic exchange. And that means respect. I loathe hostility and am uncomfortable with aggression, so please find a way to make the debate friendly.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, so my brain has been socialized to understand arguments in a relatively formal sense: e.g., a claim supported with evidence—connected with a warrant. Please don’t read this as a normative endorsement of the Toulmin model. Instead, it’s a descriptive claim of the way that I have learned to think through my experience in debate and my livelihood teaching Introduction to Argument classes.</li> <li>While I enjoy reading critical theory and cultural studies, my brain is quicker to make sense of things that are tangible, concrete, and explained using examples. For critical teams, this means you ought to describe how your argument plays out in the world of the plan; for orthodox teams, this means you need to describe how the plan solves your harms (even if this is internal to an advantage); and for project teams it means explaining how your argument will concretely and meaningfully cause change.</li> </ol> The bottom line is this: you are an active agent of social transformation. You should actualization that agency for positive social change—and not for social domination.

Nick Stump - Grand Canyon

Nicole Nabulsi - IVC

Novera Raza - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Peter Sol - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Philippe Noel - IVC

Rachael MacWillie - Santiago Canyon

Rachael Phipps - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Rafael Gonzalez - Rio

Rana Ayazi - UCLA

Ray Batarina - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Rebecca Cannon - Glendale, CA

Rene Ucross - Saddleback

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Reyna Velarde - Long Beach

Reyna Velarde- Judging Philosophy   Cal. State Long Beach Years Judging Debate: 10 Years Competed in Debate: 6 What School Competed at:  Grossmont/Cuyamaca College & CSU, Long Beach       My background is in Parliamentary debate and Individual events. I want you to make good arguments and communicate them well at the same time. Teams that win my rounds are making the better arguments and speakers that receive higher speaker points are speaking well and making good arguments.   Structure: I believe a good debate has good structure and arguments are responded to with offensive arguments. Please be organized and tell me where you are making the arguments. I will not do the work for you. I will time roadmaps- as it should not take more than 5 seconds to say, “Ad1, the K, DA1, DA2 , then Solvency.” I will also time thank you’s- that shouldn’t take very long either.   Types of Arguments: I will listen to any argument as long as you have good warrants and reasoning’s. If you want to try out a critical Aff, go for it. I will listen to K’s, as long as they are run well and you have a good narrative and structure.   Topicality: I know I said I’ll listen to any argument, however- I have a particular distain for Topicality. Please don’t run T as a test of competition or when it is unwarranted. This doesn’t mean don’t run T at all… If the Aff isn’t topical, then run T. I just don’t want the whole debate to come down to a T, XT, FXT time suck debate. I prefer to watch a debate on the resolution or on something critical- not on semantics. Again, of course it is warranted and you really, really, really, need to run T. And if you do run T- please make it short- If you are responding to T, you either know how to answer it or you don’t- so get to it quickly and respond. If I look bored when you are talking about T- get through it faster.   Speed: Speaking of fast, I am a tad disabled in my right wrist. It broke about 6 years ago and it can get sore and tired quickly. If you are going to speak quickly, speak articulately. If your debates are only won with speed, I am not the judge for you. If I feel like you are too fast, I will give you no more than 3 warning calls of “speed” or “slow down”, before I drop my pen or I stop typing.   Overall, have fun in the debate. Please have a good debate about the resolution- I prefer a debate with Advantages, DA’s, Counter-plans, and K’s. Be nice to each other and make sure you call POI’s if you hear them in the Rebuttals- Don’t assume I’ll catch them. At the end, make sure you have some voters- I want to know where you think I should vote.

Rian Borland - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Richard Cline - Fullerton Col

Richard Coto - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Rob Layne - Utah

As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993.  I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform.  I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter.  That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.   Some general notes: (As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).   <ol> <li>Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.</li> <li>Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”</li> <li>Use warrants in all of your arguments.  This means grounding arguments in specific examples. </li> <li>Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition.  I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm.  If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.</li> <li>Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.</li> <li>Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.</li> <li>I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  Let me have time to flip the page.</li> <li>Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  I don’t award double wins or double losses.</li> <li>Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.</li> <li>I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.</li> <li>Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.</li> <li>Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.  I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  </li> <li> Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.</li> <li>Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.</li> <li>Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.</li> <li>Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.</li> <li>Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.</li> <li>Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.</li> <li>Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.</li> <li>I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal.  It’s not like paper is sacrosanct.  If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.</li> <li>Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.</li> </ol>     Speaker points: I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.   Critical Arguments:   I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.   Performance based arguments: Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.   Procedurals:   I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool. I don’t require in-round abuse, though it will help to prove why your interpretation is preferable.  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you.  I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a higher standard than I would LOC theory.   Counterplans I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Robert Holcomb - Rio

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Rossini Batino - OCC

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

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!

Sandy Betlan - IVC

Sarah Benedict - Fullerton Col

Sarah Sherwood - Glendale, CA

Sarai Sariana - Fullerton Col

Scott Tuggle - IVC

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.

Sean Connor - OCC

Shane Flanagin - UCLA

Name: Shane Flanagin   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: B.A. in Political Science (American Politics and International Relations concentration), currently pursuing my Master’s in International Relations with an emphasis on politics in the Middle East (If you want to hear the details, ask; otherwise I’ll spare you the details).   Background: Competed for UCLA in BP/World’s style debate in college, with some Parli experience in high school. I currently work as the assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   NPDA Judging Philosophy   General Philosophy: First and foremost, I prefer to think of myself as a communication-style judge, that is to say that I prefer clear, thoughtful, well-articulated arguments over how many lines of argumentation you can bring to bear. That being said, speed can be a problem for me with some speakers. I enjoy creativity in debate and believe that the rush for greater and greater speed by teams is killing it. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request.   Put time into your lines of argumentation and argue them persuasively, and you’ll be fine; try to simply overwhelm the other team with arguments and you’ll likely not like my ballot.   Specific Points:   - Not a fan of T, run it if you absolutely must; but I would greatly prefer that you argue the case in front of you and trust that I will realize whether a team has strayed wildly off topic. That being said, if you are the first speaker, make sure you present a reasonable interpretation of the motion, or you will lose. Use your best judgment and try to leave equitable ground on both sides of the case.   - CP’s are fine as long as they are significantly distinct and exclusive of the Affirmative case.   - I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis to blippy high magnitude assertions.   - Questions: --I still believe that you must take one question in each constructive   - Etiquette: Be respectful, no excuses. Feel free to be passionate, but don’t attack or bully a fellow debater. This includes remarks or non-verbals during another speaker’s time.   Evaluating Rounds: Policy maker/ Net benefits, unless instructed otherwise in a compelling fashion by a team. I love weighing mechanisms, but will entertain generally any argument/strategy in the context of the round.   Finally, don’t shorthand your arguments, or make me do your work for you (i.e., explain your sources/theories/etc. as if to a layperson and not a policy expert). As well, I only count complete arguments, if you leave out the warrant or link or impact,  it won’t weigh heavily, if at all, in my decision.

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 - Canyons

n/a

Simon Rhee - PSCFAJudges

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 Alvarez - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Stephanie Solis - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Steve Reyes - USC

n/a

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Suki Cervantes - Saddleback

Sydney Awakuni - Long Beach

Question 1: What is your judging philosophy? Background/Experience: •Currently- MA & coaching at California State University, Long Beach •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 •BA Communication Point Loma Nazarene University 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! •Respect your teammates, opponents, judge, and any audience members. •Play & Compete. To me debate is a game of intellectual banter so be fun and strategic! •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. •Tell me how you me as a judge to view the round and WEIGH the arguments for me. Tell me what you want prioritized. (Ex: why are the values of the K more important/come before the case debate). General Information/Questions You’ll Probably Ask Me: How I View the Round •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) Speed •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. •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 CP •Perms- I would like it if you specified if the permutation is a test of competition or an advocacy. The K •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 but I am NOT an expert. If you want to debate 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. •*2014-15 Update: Last year I found myself voting for more Ks than I ever thought I would. To win me over on a K- give me an under view to the position (quick summary) – it helps make sure you and I are on the same page. Also if you can apply the K to parts of case and use it as offense there- I like having multiple ways to vote for something vs. one big K vs. no answers on the case. •I don’t like Ks that personally attack other people (it doesn’t matter if they are sitting in the round or not), other teams, or a school’s background.   So have a good time in the round and also play to be competitive! If you have any further Qs please ask me

T. J. Lakin - FIU

I have been a coach and participant for more than 11 years.  Specifics: Speed:  No problem so long as I can understand you. Counterplans: Fine Speaker points:  25 - 26 Average; 27-28 Above Average; 29-30 Excellent. Critical:  Fine Performance: Fine Topicality: I will vote on topicality. If you have any questions, ask me.

Teja Foster - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Tenisha Baca - GCCAZ

n/a

Tim Seavey - Chapman

n/a

Turner Lynch - Rio

Tushita Hartitwal - OCC

Tyler Heathman - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Valerie Prendiz - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Vanessa Randolph - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Vernelle Kruse - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Victor Cornejo - CSULA

I firmly believe that debate should be what you want it to be. Run whatever argument you believe is important for us to have a conversation about. I value quality over quantity and word choice over speed. Your rebuttals should explicitly tell me why you deserve my ballot.

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

Victor Wright - Rio

Virginia Camerena - Rio

Wendell Hanks - Cerritos College

Will Daland - PSCFAJudges

n/a

William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College Parli Debates judged this year: 40+ Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+ Years Judging Debate: 15 Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.' Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. ' Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.' Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.' Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.' Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.' Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '

Willie Washington - IVC

Yaw Kyeremateng - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Zar Papazyan - UCLA

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.

2014 PSCFA Fall Championships