FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Fullman - Saddleback

Abigail Watkins - El Camino

Experience: I competed for two years at El Camino College, where I competed at both community college circuit tournaments as well as NPDA/NPTE, and I have been coaching at El Camino for two years. IMPORTANT: If you only take one thing away from my judging philosophy, remember this: please do not read arguments about animal abuse/violence against animals/animal death in front of me. You are one hundred percent guaranteed to give me a panic attack. This is an unfortunate reality of my mental health and something I would happily change if I could. If you are wondering whether or not an argument might delve into this territory, I beg you to exercise caution! Otherwise: SPEED: I am somewhat out of practice flowing absolute top speed so if you’re super fast you might want to slow down a bit for me, but overall I should be fine flowing most people’s spread, especially on a laptop. I have terrible listening comprehension so if your spread isn’t super clear, you definitely want to slow down just to make sure that I understand you. FRAMEWORK: I will default to a net benefits paradigm unless otherwise instructed. I tend to respond best to framework arguments with clear real world warrants to back up your claims. THEORY: I love theory. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise instructed. Please don’t read RVIs in front of me unless the round has entered some weird parallel universe and you really, REALLY think that they’re justified. KRITIKS: I like the kritik and I think it can be a valuable tool in the debate. You should probably assume that I don’t know anything about the literature. If all things are equal and you’re wondering whether or not to go for a DA/CP round or a K round, you might be better off going for a more “straight up” style in front of me, but I am not predisposed against the K in the slightest. IDENTITY ARGS: I might not be your best judge for this; I feel like they are asking me to insert myself into the round as a judge in a way that I don’t always feel comfortable doing. But if this is your strategy in competition, I will do my best to judge these arguments as I would any other. I have certainly voted for them in the past. CONDITIONALITY: I default to unconditionality unless otherwise instructed and I tend to be receptive to arguments that unconditionality is a superior paradigm, but ultimately...I don’t care that much. MISC: Economics make little to no sense to me so if it’s going to be an econ round...read Marx or be very clear in defining your terms, and don't rely on me to gutcheck your opponents because it's just not going to happen. I have horrible nonverbals, and I am sorry about that. It’s just how my face is. I understand that when you’re going fast, it’s easy for your volume level to pick up as well, but I am very noise sensitive so if you can try your best not to yell at me I will appreciate it. Have fun? Have fun.

Adam Navarro - ELAC

n/a

Adam Cassidy - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Aditya Sharma - IVC

Aditya Sharma - SMC

Adriena Young - CBU

n/a

Adrienne Collins - Saddleback

Alex Ortega - PCC

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - LAVC

n/a

Alyssa Sambor - Palomar

Alyssa Delgadillo - Rio

Amanda Ozaki-Laughon - Concordia

Hello,  I am the Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 3rd year coaching and judging.  I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.  Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.  Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.  Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.  Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

Amy Wangsadipura - Mt SAC

Andrew Rinard - APU

n/a

Andrew Dias - FIU

Judging Philosophy Background: I've competed for several years, and I've judged high school debate. Tabula rasa Speed: Talking quickly is ok, but if your speech becomes distorted, I will not be able to flow. Critical cases: I will not vote for a kritik that vaguely links to the subject. Topicality: I do not think we can debate with terms become equivocated, so topicality is a prior issue to me unless you can show how it is not. Counterplans: Conditional/dispositional counterplans are not ok and I will only vote for competitive cps that add educational value to the round. Speaking points will be based on your respect and demeanor towards your opponent.

Angelica Grigsby - Concordia

Anna Yan - PCC

n/a

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU

Overview: I am a flow critic and believe that debate, although it has numerous benefits outside of competition, is at its core a game.  Specific Arguments: Run what you want but I enjoy econ, politics and procedural positions. I accept both competing interpretations and abuse paradigm but you have to be the one to tell me how to evaluate the position. I enjoy the K but do not just name a theorist or throw out tag lines without explaining what they mean. There are thousands of authors who have multiple publications that sometimes even contradict themselves as time goes by so make sure you reference a specifc argument so that I can follow along. I have no preference between Kritikal or straight up debate but I did write my MA utilizing critical methodologies and am focussing my current research on Rhetorical Criticisms with a focus on critical gender studies. Run your K's but make sure you repeat your alt text, your ROB, and perms. Speed: I am fine with speed but don't intentionally exclude your oponents. Please repeat all texts, advocacies, ROB's, interps, etc.  Closing Remarks: Be kind to one another. Be respectful and use warrants. I am fine with high magnitude low probability impacts as long as there is a clear well warranted explanation of how we got there. That being said, I will vote where you tell me to so make sure that you use your rebuttals to summarize the debate and not as another constructive.

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon Tanielu - OCC

Brandon Fletcher - CSU Long Beach

n/a

Brenda Nelson - IVC

Brian Hy - CSULA

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Brittney Rivera - Mt SAC

Bryan Malinis - Cerritos College

Content: As a judge, I am looking for the team that provides the strongest, most logical arguments in the round. Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate correctly. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. In parliamentary debate, I expect you to articulate abuse and points of order. Topicality: I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-justified by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. Once you have run the T, you enhance your chances of picking up my ballot by still spending time arguing against the case presented by the government. If you spend the entire LOC running only topicality, I will assume that you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to defend against faulty arguments (I also feel like you are wasting my time on one single argument). So, do not assume that I will vote for you purely on your topicality.   Kritiks: I am not a fan of these, so tread carefully. I will not immediately drop you for using a K, but these arguments must be well-justified and clearly articulated. Use common sense here. Delivery: Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am fine with partner-to-partner communication; however, I will only flow what the present speaker says. Please keep audible P2P communication to a minimum while an opponent is speaking: excessive talking hinders my ability to truly focus on the present speaker. Expectation of Decorum: Debaters are expected to perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks.

CLS Ferguson - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Caitlyn Burford - NAU

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University) Background: This is my eigth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round. Specific Inquiries 1. General Overview I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics. This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with. In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state. The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act. Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Thus, framework is imperative. I’ll get there shortly. You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point. (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 2. Framework This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc. This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze. In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round. Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage. If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate. If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case. 3. Theory It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too. Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them. If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”. So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it. 4. Counterplan Debate This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition. That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well. Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy. 5. Round Evaluation Again, framework is important. Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.) If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case. I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally. A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument. A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact. (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome. If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must. 6. Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things I’m fine with speed. Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do. I don’t really care about how many questions you answer if any, but if you don’t then you are probably making yourself more vulnerable to arguments about shifts or the specificities of “normal means”. It’s your round! Do what you want!

Carli Olsen - Moorpark

n/a

Carol Flores - Mt SAC

Carolina Sainz - Rio

Chanelle Prime - LAVC

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.

Chathi Anderson - COMS 4 Compton

n/a

Chris Sandoval - Mt SAC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Chris Skiles - Cal Poly SLO

Christina Nguyen - Fullerton Col

Corey Henderson - Claremont

n/a

Corey Taft - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Courtney Gammariello - PLNU

Dacia Duran - Rio

Dana Jean Smith - Santiago Canyon

Daniel Cantrell - Mt SAC

My primary voting paradigm is clash.  Please engage each other's arguments. Otherwise, run what you think is persuasive and we will see how it works out in the round.

Daniella Izzaguirre - LAVC

n/a

Darian Taban - IVC

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 Finnigan - IVC

David Miller - OCC

David Hale - CSU Long Beach

n/a

David Rehm - Santiago Canyon

n/a

David Berver - Mesa

Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University Saved Philosophy: Background: I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty. On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments). Generally: Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team). I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it. I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try. Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on. I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly). I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents. I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole. Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

Derod Taylor - ELAC

n/a

Desi Chavez-Appel - Glendale, CA

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diana Lopez-Martinez - CBU

n/a

Diana Alami - Mt SAC

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Dymond Galvan - CBU

Edgar Munguia - Mt SAC

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.

Elsa Anaya - Cerritos College

Emma Hong - Grand Canyon

Eric Yahn - Glendale CC

~• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.) 2 years of collegiate parliamentary debate experience 3 years of collegiate forensics experience 3 years of collegiate forensics coaching experience  • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) I am a tabula rasa judge. I will vote where you tell me to, as long as it is well articulated and warranted. I'm open to trichotomy and topicality arguments, they serve a purpose so use them if you have to. I am not a fan of Kritiks, and here's why, I've found that most people don't use them properly. If they are poorly drawn and out of context then I cannot vote on them, theory arguments are impressive yes, but if you don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then your opponant wont either and if I have to piece together a theory for you then you've already lost. Don't try it if you can't handle it, it's better to debate at face value than over extend your reach.  • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making I am a champion of decorum. I like thank yous and human decency. Be nice to one another and we'll get along fine. I want clean well articulated arguments, as such I tend to favor Toulmens model of argumentation. i.e. This happens because of that for these reasons. Sign post everything always, tell me where you are on the flow, what arguments you are responding to, what your response is and why your response is better. Time that I have to spend flipping through pages is time that I am not flowing you.  • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making Both on and off case argumentation are key to winning my ballot. I will vote on dropped arguments if you tell me to, but I will not do any leg work for you. If you don't say it, I can't flow it.   I will not flow speed, if its too fast and I miss it, thats your fault. Note: I can't flow policy speakers and the "double pump" is one of the most irritating noises ever. I will clear you if I have to but I will take it out of your speaker points. Brownie points* for making me laugh though.  • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and Kritiks I am not opposed to a topicality argument but it needs to be properly structured. Counter plans are fine, but should also be clearly structured. I do not like Kritiks. • Preferences on calling Points of Order Points of order should be used to call out new argumentation in rebuttals, if you don't tell me they're new arguments, they're on my flow to be calculated when voting. Points of order will be ruled on if possible, in rounds with a panel of judges, they'll be taken into consideration.  IPDA I view IPDA as a cross between dueling extemps and persuasion. Tell me your story, give me your facts, and defend your findings.  NFA-LA  I never competed in LD, however I have the base knowledge to coach and judge the event. I will flow what you tell me but I will call for cards if thats where you and the opposition draw the lines. Keep it neat, keep it clean, be persuasive.   *Brownie points are not redeemable for credit, speaker points or actual brownies.

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erin Crossman - Rio

Felix Rodriguez - Rio

Finny Vuong - PCC

n/a

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

Frank Cuevas - PLNU

Judging Philosophy:   I debated from 2006 to 2011 both at Palomar College and UCSD. I view debate primarily as a game and secondarily as a platform for advocacy because tournament directors usually require a winner and a loser per round. Debate is unique because the rule structure and framework of how the game should be played is up to the individuals in that round, albeit with a minor amount of win conditions superseded by the tournament organizers. With that mindset as a judge, I do my best to keep an open mind about how or what you want the debates to be, be it kritiks, performance-narratives, policy plans, etc. In terms of procedurals, I view them from a competing interpretation paradigm, mainly because I believe it requires more strategy, research, and nuance to argue the merits of one interpretation over another. I prefer them over abuse paradigms because I feel abuse scenarios are not articulated enough in the community, insofar as they mainly lie in potential abuse. And potential abuse becomes too nebulous and regressive an argument. However, as I previously mentioned, I will do my best to default to whatever paradigm you present me so long as it's stated and warranted, just know that if you are running abuse without properly articulating to me why, I will have a higher threshold to vote for it. In terms of speed, debate is a game, and speed is just another strategy competitors use to leverage a win. But here is a large qualifier: I was never a fast competitor myself, and I cannot keep up with fast debate anymore due to lack of flowing regularly. So go fast at your own risk. I am transparent in my non-verbals. You will know if the round is too fast for me. Most importantly, because this is a game and I assume we are all humans, please be respectful towards one another and have fun.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask prior to the round. Good luck and have fun.

Gary Smith - El Camino

Ged Valenzuela - PLNU

I am open to whatever you want to do, the round is yours as long as you can justify why I should prefer viewing the round in your way.     I do not like doing work for competitors, so please extend your arguments in your rebuttals.  Otherwise I will just go off who dropped the most arguments, and that is never fun.   With regards to topicality and procedurals, I don't need proven in-round abuse, but it definitely works in your favor.   I enjoy hearing kritikal arguments, but I especially like when teams emphasize their links and articulate how their opponent's arguments specifically interact with yours.    Be kind to your opponents.

Genieve Aguilar - PLNU

Gordon Ip - ELAC

n/a

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

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

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.

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Holland Smith - CSULA

Hugh Lehane - IVC

Ian Greer - UCLA

Name: Ian Greer   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: Graduating in June with a degree in Communication with a heavy emphasis on rhetoric and law, currently preparing for the LSAT and shopping for law schools.   Background: I gained some experience in debate and mock trial in high school, after which I served four of the best years of my life in the United States Marine Corps. After the military, I went to community college and debated in the NPDA circuit for two years. Currently I am an assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   General Philosophy: Debate, in my opinion, is a regulated verbal battle, and I fully expect to see fists flying and blows clashing (metaphorically of course). I cannot emphasize enough how much I love clash and contention, and thus greatly prefer solid substantive argumentation over weak but numerous points. I would like to think that I come into a round as unbiased as one can be, and am willing to hear out any and all arguments so long as they are clearly presented and well formed. I greatly prefer arguments to be impacted out, although I am not a fan of everything ending in nuclear war, genocide, or the next great depression (although if they are legitimate results, go for it!). Rather than show tenuous links to abhorrent atrocities, I prefer you make your impacts realistic and thoughtful. I am a fan of humor and wit, though keep it above the belt; ad hominem arguments, vulgarity and general rudeness will categorically receive a loss of both my vote and of speaker points. I enjoy narratives, with debaters skillfully painting a picture of how marvelous the world will be if their plan is implemented, or how terrible it will be if their opponents plan is employed. Lastly, I personally slightly prefer logos (appeals to logic) over pathos (appeals to emotion), although please do not let that dissuade you from using the latter.   Spreading: I feel that speeding and spreading is a tactic that defeats the purpose of debate and is best left to auctioneers, however I will not categorically vote against it if neither side voices an objection; however, please slow down or speak clearer if your opponent asks you to. Furthermore, it is in your best interest that I flow all of your arguments, and thus it would behoove you to speak at a pace at which I am able to flow. If I say “clear” and you do not slow down, I may not be able to flow some of what you are saying, which may negatively impact your case.   Trichotomy:  I am familiar with Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” and the standard tricot lines stating that “we prepared for X and they are running Y”, and I understand that having the gov run in a direction other than the one you predicted can be troublesome, but I believe that opp points prepared for one type of claim can still be applied, albeit with some doctoring, to any other claim type. I believe one of the qualities of greatest import to a skilled debater is adaptability, and that a debater should be able to think on the fly so as to still present to me a well thought out and thought provoking case. That being said, I would prefer if gov teams not stray from the intended resolution format and instead debate the resolution as it is meant to be debated. Don’t be abusive; if gov turns “Nature is more important that nurture” into a policy, I will more than likely side with the opp. To summarize, opp: please don’t run tricot unless absolutely necessary, gov: please don’t make it necessary.   Topicality: Similar to tricot, I am not a fan of T. I feel that I can decide on my own whether the gov has strayed too far from the topic, and do not need the opp to spend valuable time laying out a prefabricated argument as to why the gov is not topical. I am willing to give gov teams some leeway, but if an interpretation is wildly unpredictable or abusive I will vote opp. Opp teams, run T if you absolutely must, but I would greatly prefer that you simply leave the issue to my discretion. If gov is not topical I will vote against them, and if they are topical and you run T you have just wasted valuable time you could have instead used to persuade me to vote for you.   Kritiks / Critiques: I dislike K as much as I dislike spreading, if not more so. I feel that by participating in organized debate you have implicitly made an agreement to argue the resolutions laid out by the tournament, and if you take umbrage with the notion of fiat, the wording of a resolution, or the particular ideologies promoted therein, you should express your opinions after the round has ended. You may run K if you absolutely feel you must, but I will more than likely not grant adherence. Instead, I would greatly prefer you argue and clash on the given topic and prove to me that you are the superior debater, regardless of your personal feelings towards the resolution presented.   Counterplans: I am fine with and enjoy a good counterplan so long as it is mutually exclusive. Opp, please ensure that your CP does not uphold the resolution, as you would simply be giving me more reasons to vote gov.

Isabet Jimenez - Mt SAC

Israel Beltran - ELAC

n/a

Jacee Cantler - IVC

Jaime Gomez - LAVC

n/a

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

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

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

Jason Hong - Grand Canyon

Jay Arntson - PCC

n/a

Jazmin Hand - APU

n/a

Jeff Samano - Fullerton Col

Jeffrey Martinez - Mt SAC

Jen Page - IVC

Jennifer Cisneros - Mt SAC

Jennifer Mahlke - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Jessica Kwack - CSUN

n/a

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!

Jin Nakama - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

John Halcomb - Fullerton Col

John Vitullo - Mt SAC

John Patrick - Cal Poly SLO

If you don't suck, you'll probably win rounds. Just sayin'.

Jonathan Flores - Mt SAC

Jorge Luna - Mt SAC

Joseph Evans - El Camino

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

Joseph Quintana - Rio

Josh House - Cypress

Background: I competed in NPDA/NPTE debate at the University of Wyoming from 2000-2004. After that, I coached Parliamentary debate at Purdue University, CSULB, and then Pepperdine University for the next 7 years. From 2012-2015 I was the DoF at Central Wyoming College and I came to Cypress College as the DoF this year. Over the past 4 years as a DoF I've run programs that offer many other events in addition to Parli and I haven't really traveled the nationally competitive Parli circuit in that time so much as I've gone to local, full-service tournaments. I honestly don't know how I think NPDA should look right now. I am willing to hear anything I guess, but I'm increasingly convinced of a couple of things: 1. Traditional policy-style Parli seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I love CP-DA debates, and I've fallen behind on the K/methods/etc debate in the past few years so I feel less confident evaluating those debates just because of my relative lack of experience. I feel much more comfortable judging a CP-DA debate on the topic, but that comfort simply is not the most important consideration right now. 2. We need really clear and accessible strategies to function as a meaningful, effective force for positive change in the world right now. I want to understand your position even though I haven't heard the argument before, and I want to know exactly how what you do or what I do benefits the world right now. I think in the past this kind of perspective has been used to dismiss K teams, but... TLDR: I want to be clear that I'm basically saying here that I'm fairly* certain I'd like to see critical debate from both sides, and I would hope you are willing to meet me at my level of understanding (I mean, look, if I'm on a panel and you punt me I won't be offended) and that you can explain your position in a way that I can teach to my non-forensics students and the friends and family I have across the country in various rural and urban areas.  *I am willing to be talked out of this, which is why I use the qualifier fairly.

Josh Hartwell - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Josh Miller - LAVC

n/a

Jovanelly Martinez - Rio

Justin Kemp - APU

n/a

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kai Convery - UCLA

n/a

Karcsi Toghia - CBU

n/a

Kasey Graves - PLNU

I've been in the activity for 9 years now. I did policy for four years in high school and then 4 years in parli. I graduated from Point Loma with a Bachelor of Arts in International Studies with a focus in Peace. The easiest way to get my ballot is to have well warranted arguments followed with clear impact calc. I will listen to any arguments and would prefer to hear ideas/strats that are your strengths! If  a debate gets messy, that's fine, just clean it up and explain how you are winning the round. 1. I am fine with partner to partner communication but do not want to see someone giving their partner's speech. A quick reminder is cool or an arg you want for your member speech or rebuttal I can get down with, anything more will get irritating. 2. I am down for critical args...I think these can be used very strategically and are legitimate ways to evaluate the way we as a society make decisions. I may not be as well read as others so just make sure to explain your args/theory  clearly. 3.  Speed is also fine with me. If you are too fast for me, I will clear you. I don't agree with using speed as a way of excluding people from the activity so just don't do it in front of me. 4. Read plan, counterplan, and perm texts twice and clearly so that I make sure I have it correctly on my flow.  5. I prefer to hear Topicality and theory when it is warranted and not as a time suck/ waster of paper but I can also appreciate a strategic T and ultimately it is your round so do as you please.  Overall, run what you want, have a good time, and learn new things about global issues! Any other questions you can ask in round :)

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kelly Kehoe - Compton

n/a

Kerrie Hillhouse - CSUF

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Recinos - SMC

Minimal judging experience. Com Studies professor.

Kevin Chiu - Mt SAC

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Kristina Rietveld - Compton

n/a

Kristine Clancy - OCC

Landon Gray - Mt SAC

Laura Capito - CBU

n/a

Lesley Crespo - Rio

Lewis Robinson - Glendale CC

Libby Curiel - Rio

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

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.

Luis Andrade - SMC

Luke Kelly - LAVC

n/a

Marc Ouimet - S&D@UCSD

Marilyn Fregoso - Rio

Marilynn Muro - Mt SAC

Mark Dorrough - Saddleback

I will vote for any argument, if it is argued well enough.  I have voted on Kriticks, DA,s, C/P's, T, and maters of abuse.  Still, no one is a complete blank slate so I will mention some of my preferences             I do not think every resolution should be turned into a policy.  The other forms of resolutions are a valid way to approach a debate.  Part of this feeling is the fact that questions of policy are not any more common than questions of fact.  In the US questions of fact occupy the majority of every criminal court case, and a huge chunk of civil cases.  Furthermore, while many theorists might advocate turning propositions of opposing values into polices of some sort, not all theorists would.             I believe Parli should be a communication event, while I can handle speed fine (I did policy for 2 years, and consider it a different form of debate) I prefer delivery to be more conversational.  If by the time the MO speaks she/he needs to go fast to cover everything I understand, but the Prime Minister should not start out spreading.  If they do, their speaker points will suffer.             I will vote on topicality for the simple reason of the government's burden.  The government has the burden of upholding the resolution, if they do not, then they should not receive my ballot.  This is rule according to NPDA.  I prefer reasonable interpretations of the resolution, which follow grammatical logic.              I allow the government the choice to parameterize or not.  If the government does parameterize then topical C/P are allowed.  If they do not parameterize, then concurrent plans are allowed by the opposition.  If you are not sure as the opposition what the government has decided to do and it matters for your strategy, then ask in a point of Information.             Arguments win my vote, rhetorical flair and persuasiveness win speaker points.  I have no problem with low point wins.              I usually disregard new arguments in rebuttals automatically, but you are still welcome to call them if you want to make sure I feel that a new argument was made.             Finally, just because I have these biases does not mean I vote on them automatically (i.e. if the government is blatantly untopical but the opposition does not argue topicality then the Government is topical as far as I am concerned)

Mark Gibson - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Matt Volz - Santiago Canyon

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

Matt Shapiro - Santiago Canyon

I am here on a work release program. If you think about it, it is a natural fit. Our prisons are over crowded, and our forensics programs are under funded. In short, don't stare at me. I keep it real.

Matt Guest - PSCFAJudges

n/a

Matthew Brandstetter - APU

n/a

Matthew Grisat - Rio

Matthew Ruiz - Rio

Melineh Kasbarian - APU

n/a

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

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 Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Nabeel Faisal - IVC

Nader Haddad - ELAC

n/a

Nate Brown - SMC

As a professor of communication studies, I approach all competitive events as communication events. Speak well. Speak clearly. Be organized, and control your vocal fillers. Focus on manner as well as matter if you want to win. For parli, I often find Topicality arguments to be a waste of time. They should not be run unless there is a very good reason, and too often I find the reasons for T to be poor. I want the round to be on topic as much as possible. I was not a competitive debater myself, so I likely have less expeirence with the terminology, strategies, and expectations than other judges. Given that, don't be afraid to dumb it down for me. Use the debate to teach me how to be a debate judge. I can't flow when a speaker talks unreasonably fast. Spreading doesn't work on me. Make good arguments, not many arguments. <a href="http://homepage.smc.edu/brown_nate/">http://homepage.smc.edu/brown_nate/</a>

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Neshan Kahkejian - APU

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

Nick Matthews - IVC

~~Nick Matthews Irvine Valley College PSCFA Parli Philosophy Ten things to know when I am judging you: 1. You must speak at a conversational speed in front of me because I have a significant hearing impairment. Any rate of speed that is faster than conversational destroys my ability to accurately understand your arguments and impedes my ability to do my job. 2. I am not a fan of fact and value rounds. I think they are much more difficult to judge, and they are largely subsumed by policy debate anyway. As such, I don’t mind if you extrapolate policy cases from fact, value, or metaphor topics (within reason, of course). 3. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don’t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a lot stronger than my understanding of critical debate. 4. I reward big-picture storytelling, intuitive arguments, impact comparison, and strategic decision-making. 5. I rarely vote for arguments I don’t understand. 6. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them. 7. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument: Whining: “Their implementation is vague and they don’t explain it! They don’t solve!” (Waaah!) Argument: “Three reasons why their implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First…” 8. You should take at least one question from the other team in each constructive. 9. The affirmative team must read either a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent. 10. I don’t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times. You do not need to call points of order; I will protect against new rebuttal arguments for you. NPTE-level debaters: my national circuit philosophy is located at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RV69pX3KyMwkkotPQ5whfUSH91D5ba027xgvj2Ig04M/edit?usp=sharing

Nick Russell - CSU Long Beach

n/a

Nick Stump - Grand Canyon

Nyeesha Hale - CBU

n/a

Paul Sunpanich - Rio

Phil Vu - OCC

RAUL HERRERA - ELAC

n/a

Rachelle Araghi - Mt SAC

Raffaela Baker - OCC

Raquel Calderon - Rio

Raymond Lu - UCLA

n/a

Renee Cooperman - Grand Canyon

Reyna Velarde - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Rhea Bonifacio - Mt SAC

Richard Ewell - Concordia

Hello, all! My name is Richard Ewell and I currently serve as one of the Co-Directors of Debate for Concordia University Irvine. I competed for El Camino College for three years and Concordia University for two. When I first set out to write my philosophy my goal was to give you all some insight into how I evaluate arguments as a critic. The interesting thing I have found is that it is difficult for me to do that because I don’t have a great deal of experience judging anything other than one-sided high policy debates. So unfortunately you are stuck with a bunch of random things I think about debate. Hope this helps! Disadvantages: Yes, please? No judge has ever squawked at the idea of a case specific disad with an intuitive link story, and I don’t plan on being the first. If relations, hegemony, or politics is more your thing, that is perfectly fine too, as I spent a large chunk of my career reading those arguments as well. Counterplans: Counterplans like condition and consult are legitimate under the specific condition that there is some sort of solvency advocate presented. Otherwise I will be skeptical of the theoretical legitimacy of such arguments, and thus more likely to reject them should an objection be made by the opposing team. Perms are never advocacies, and are only tests of competition. But you knew that already… Theory: I will listen to your SPEC shells, and I won’t penalize you for running it, but the likelihood that I endorse such an argument with my ballot is slim. I believe such debates are best resolved through debates about what constitutes normal means. When evaluating theoretical objections I am inclined to reject the argument and not the team (except as it pertains to conditionality, which we will get to in a second), but will listen to arguments which suggest a harsher punishment is warranted. As for conditionality…I don’t really think it’s that bad. Considering I was unconditional for 90% of my career I might be inclined to favor the “condo bad” over the “condo good” arguments, and multiple conditional strategies are likely to annoy me a great deal, but logically consistent strategies which include disads and/or case turns with a conditional K or counterplan don’t seem that unreasonable to me… K’s on the Negative: I read the K a good deal in my final years in debate, and I enjoy these types of debate very much. However, NEVER assume that I have read the foundational literature for your K because I make it a policy to not vote for arguments I don’t understand… K’s on the Affirmative: I read K’s on the affirmative a great deal. But even when I was doing it I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. Was it fun for me? Yeah. For my opponents? Probably not so much. That bothers me a bit. Does that mean that you ought not read these arguments in front me? No, that is absolutely not what I mean. In fact, topical critical affs are some of my favorite arguments. If it is not topical aff (perhaps, a rejection of the res) that is fine as well so long as there are specific reasons why the res ought be rejected. Put simply: the less your argument has to deal with the topic, the more likely I am to be persuaded by framework and topicality. Miscellaneous Stuff: -Be nice! Providing a spirited defense of your arguments and being kind are not mutually exclusive. -Not a huge fan of “no perms in a methods debate” type arguments. Tests of competition are generally good for debate, in my opinion. I understand the strategic utility of the position, so I will not fault you for running it. I would just prefer that you not (get it? prefer that you not? never mind). -I am also not a huge fan of “you must disclose” type arguments. I think topicality is the argument you should read against critical affs, but do what you will. -I don’t know what to do with text comp. I think I know what it is, but for all of our sakes making a specific theoretical objection (delay bad, consult bad, etc.) will get you further with me than text comp will. -And last, have fun! (EDIT FROM AMANDA: Richard is a TOTAL REBUTTAL HACK. Also any fantasy football references or shoutouts to the Philadelphia Eagles will get you speaks)

Richard Regan - Grand Canyon

Robert Hawkins - DVC

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Ron Newman - MSJC

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

The merit of your arguments is the foremost deciding factor for me. The debater(s) who has the strongest arguments should win. As a personal preference, I like well structured debates. If I can easily flow what you're saying and where you're refuting your opponent, it makes it much easier for me to make a fair decision without interjecting into your round. Try not to be a douchebag. There is really no reason to be rude or condescending; these are strategies of aggression that are usually employed by debaters who lack more refined skills of actual argumentation. You should address me, the judge, not each other. You can communicate with your teammate, but it should not be excessive or distracting... and I will only flow what actually comes out of the speaker's mouth. (Additionally, it always appears like there's not great partner trust when one person tries to dominate his/her partner... and I start to doubt your credibility.) I recommend that you stand when you speak and employ good public speaking traits: articulation, limit non-verbal distractions, fluid delivery with few verbal fillers, eye contact, expressiveness, etc. I am willing to listen to anything you'd like to discuss. However, it is your responsibility to explain clearly why I should prefer your argument to another. This applies to the use of procedurals; running a procedural isn't a guarantee of a win. Your responsibility as a debater is to explain exactly what the violation is and how it impacts the round or to explain clearly why the violation did not occur or how it is irrelevant to the round. Similarly, I will listen to a K, but you have to convince me that this is more significant than the resolution... or why it isn't. Do your job to flush out arguments and rebuttals so I don't have to! I feel speed is a weak strategy as it promotes quantity over quality of arguments. I'd rather hear fewer, more developed arguments than a long list used as a time suck... which sucks. If I can't keep up with your spreading, I will simply stop flowing the round; if your argument doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't consider it when making my decision. Use of jargon is fine, as long as you are using it correctly and linking it specifically into the debate. Don't use jargon for jargon sake; integrate it into the specific debate. If you have other questions, feel free to ask me! But if you ask for my preferences and are not willing to adapt to them, I’d rather you just didn’t even ask.

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!

Sam Hall - Saddleback

Sarah Crachiolo - LACC

n/a

Sean Connor - OCC

Seth Fromm - Glendale CC

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.

Shannon Prier - Concordia

Edits in this version: I removed a lot. Clarified my position on conditionality. Adjusted the K and speaker point sections. Background: I have been involved with debate for 4 years. I debated at ECC for 2 years and CUI for slightly over 1. I stopped competing after Jewell my senior year and moved to a minor coaching role on CUI’s team (really just helping new folks write files and judge a tournament here or there). I have been judging all of the 2015-2016 season.   General: Most important: I have issues hearing. Please, please, please read all plan texts, counterplan texts, advocacy texts, alternative text, and interp/role of the ballot arguments twice and clear.  Also, I flow on paper if that means anything to you. QUICK STUFF: I enjoy debates about the topic. My dislike conditionality has more to do with my distaste for backfilling warrants. I have no moral issues with conditionality, but I also have no issue voting for Condo bad. For the K: I’m not in the lit base for most things post modern so keep that in mind. Most of my issues following those arguments have to do with the use of phrases I’m not familiar with. If you have me in the back of the room, consider simplifying the terminology if you are running something based on a post-modern philosopher and I should be fine. I am fine with you reading a criticism. However, I am not the best critic for your arguments. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments. Chances are I’m not in your lit base so it’s your job to make sure your argument is understandable/accessible. Also, if you go one off and 5 minutes of case and the one off is a disad, you’ll probably have my heart forever. The K: As a very brief background for me with the K: I frequently ran Cap bad and Fem Ks, more specifically Fem IR. Feel free to run a critical affirmative, but I’ll definitely be open to the argument that you should defend the topic. Also, I flow criticisms on one sheet with the alt on a separate sheet if that matters. REJECTING THE RESOLUTION AND RECURRING CRITICISMS (sometimes referred to as projects): I approach debate as a game that you are trying to win. If you tell me that debate is a platform for you to spread your message, I will do my best to assume genuine intent, but realize I will usually assume you are just trying to win a ballot.  I understand that advocacies get incredibly personal, especially when you spend a year researching it. On the aff: I have no issue with you not debating the topic. I would much rather watch you debate what you are passionate about rather than attempt to talk about the economy if that’s not your thing. Just make sure the argument is still clear and easy to evaluate (i.e., have at minimum a role of the ballot argument). For criticisms that utilize personal experience, please avoid using arguments about mental health issues or sexual violence, as I would prefer not to have to critically evaluate those. If you would like to get more information on why I would prefer not to evaluate personal struggles of mental health, contact me privately (Facebook before the tournament, or just come and talk to me if you see me around). I am completely willing to discuss my issues with evaluating these arguments if you reach out to me. ALTERNATIVES: Make sure you have a written text and repeat it twice and clear. If you have a critical affirmative that doesn’t have an advocacy text (or if your narrative/entire PMC is your advocacy) then please have a role of the ballot argument somewhere. Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team.  Make sure you have a written text. I like advantage counterplans, PICs, and actor counterplans. Consult less so, but I’m open to it. For the affirmative: I’m open to PICs bad arguments (particularly at topic area tournaments) claiming the neg shouldn’t get a PIC when there is only one possible affirmative. Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. I will not reject a permutation outright unless you give me a reason of why it shouldn’t be evaluated. Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Please read your interpretations more than once. I am willing to vote on theory arguments, however I do not believe that new theory in the PMR is legitimate, even if it is in response to something that happened in the block. (This includes theory such as “You must take a question”). Topicality: I have yet to see a round with a legitimate reason why topicality is a reverse voting issue. My threshold for T is maybe lower than some. If you win your interpretation, violation, and your standards outweigh I will vote for you. Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Others have told me that I’m a bit of a point fairy (I’ll typically start from 29 and move down to about 27 with half points in between). I think speaker points are fairly arbitrary so I have never found a good justification for changing that range.  TL;DR: Be nice and smart. I like policy debate. Ask me any questions if necessary. (updated: March 6, 2016).

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

Shelley Natale - Fullerton Col

Shelton Hill - Glendale CC

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

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 Barragan - Mt SAC

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Steven Plogger - COMS 4 Compton

n/a

Steven Plogger - IVC

n/a

Susie Virzi - IVC

Suzanne Uhl - MSJC

n/a

Sydney Folsom - APU

n/a

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.

Tim Mount - OCC

Tracey Ng - SMC

Victor Cornejo - PCC

n/a

Victor Wright - Rio

Vince Sampieri - Rio

Wendy Lai - Rio

Will Prior - El Camino

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 - Concordia

Yiqi Zhao - Claremont

n/a

2015 PSCFA Fall Championships