FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Navarro - Cerritos College

Adriena Young - APU

n/a

Alixandria Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

n/a

Alonzo Eldridge - CSUF

n/a

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).

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

n/a

Ashley Kao - IVC

n/a

Ashley Graham - Cerritos College

n/a

Ashlyn Pendergraft - UCLA

n/a

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Bobby Lebeda - CSUN

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brandon West - PLNU

Brandon West – Point Loma Nazarene University   I debated with Point Loma all four years of college in Parli and LD debate. I focused mainly on parli and was a national circuit debater. TL;DR – I’m ok with whatever speed and strategy you have at your disposal and simply love a good debate. The only positions I’m slightly dispositioned against are identity politics K’s because I feel uncomfortable evaluating them typically. Overall, debate is a game, so play it. I’m most comfortable in a straight up econ debate, but please run whatever you do best. Speed – Go as fast as you like. Please don’t be abusive if the other team is constantly calling clear. If there is blatant abuse, I am sympathetic to speed procedurals if impacted well. Debate should be accessible to both teams. Don’t use it as a tool of exclusion. Procedurals – Love them. Don’t apologize for running a procedural, I think there is just as much education to be had in these debates as any other. Impact your procedural, I’m a fan of counter frameworks against kritikal positions. Kritikal positions – Totally fine. I will say that I have a high threshold for solvency with kritiks. Please explain exactly why you solve the aff and/or your impacts. I’m not terribly well-read on a litany of literature. Don’t assume I’ve read your author. Please don’t assume I’m liberal/conservative and agree with X position. I really try to distance myself from my opinion and vote on the flow, so I absolutely LOVE impact turns to kritiks. I’ll tell you how I evaluate K’s. First, does the K solve the aff? If not, does the K advocacy solve the impacts of the K? If so, does the K’s impacts outweigh the case impacts? Last, is the offense against the alternative stronger than the offense against the case? Please, please, please, please leverage your case against the K instead of just abandoning your case out of fear. As I said above I don’t typically enjoy identity politics debate, and I’ll explain in more detail now why. First, I feel that most of these positions, unless expertly done, end up attacking the opponents for their identity and recreating all of the violence they try to solve. Additionally, I have found extreme and tragic irony in the fact that most rounds I have watched where people have been sobbing, felt personally attacked, quit debate, and/or been legitimately a victim of rhetorical violence have been identity politics rounds meant to solve violence against X groups. I find non-identity based kritiks and policy rounds to cause this level of violence a much lower percentage of the time. This is not to say there is not subtle violence against certain groups in policy making, and I welcome you to point these out and propose ways to solve these issues. But often the leverage of identity creates severe ontological violence in-round. I hate seeing these rounds get ugly and I don’t enjoy judging them. Second, as a passing-white straight male I am rarely the group discussed in the position. This means that I typically find it difficult and uncomfortable for me to pass a ballot based on a debater’s identity while probably linking to all of their impacts both in terms of my identity and in terms of the act of voting for them in and of itself. This is not to say I will never vote for these positions, but I have a low threshold for arguments about why these positions are bad and a low threshold for calling the round if it gets rhetorically violent. Advantages/Disadvantages – I love a straight up debate. Econ was my thing, so if you’re an econ debater I am the judge for you. I do typically lean towards probability over magnitude and find most nuke war scenarios silly, but run whatever scenario you’re comfortable with and I’ll evaluate it. You need to explain your link scenario and articulate the steps that lead all the way to your terminal impacts. Counterplans – Love them. Not sure what else to say about this, I leave theory debates about CP’s up to the debaters. Politics – Totally down. However, I don’t like really vague tix scenarios or scenarios where one single person magically has the magical ability to unilaterally control the entire bill’s passing or not. You don’t win tix because you know the name of one senator the other team didn’t know, or the other team dropped the hair color of a Congressperson in your links scenario.

Brianna Broady - SMC

n/a

Bryan Malinis - Mesa

Content: I am a stock issues judge. I will vote on presumption if the government team fails to provide a substantial on-case that meets their burden of proof. I am looking for the team that provides the strongest arguments based on common knowledge; evidence-based arguments are welcomed, but not required. Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. 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 claims, data, links, internal links, and impacts. I will not make the argument for you in my head--you must tell me what to think! I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. In parliamentary debate, I expect you to articulate abuse and points of order. In IPDA, treat me as a layjudge; I know nothing. 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. This is an a priori voting issue for me, but only if presented correctly! I will vote on a suicide T, especially if the procedural was absolutely necessary and correctly presented. . Kritiks: I am not a fan of these, so proceed with caution. I will not immediately drop you for using a K, but these arguments must be 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. Excessive insults will result in me dropping your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too.

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!

Caleb Sutherlin - APU

n/a

Cameron Martin - Grossmont

n/a

Carrie Patterson - Cerritos College

Chathi Anderson - CSUF

n/a

Christiaan Pipion - OCC

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Experience:  Director of Debate at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Program competed in both CEDA and Parliamentary Debate.   8 years of NDT debate in high school and college.   Overall:  I enjoy a round in which the issues are well analyzed.  Speed is fine, but I prefer few, well articulated arguments than a multitude of non-case specific, poorly analyzed arguments.  I will generally decide the round on the policy-making issues and not on who is the better speaker.  My decision in Value rounds will be based on whoever is the most convincing, which often means whoever is the most enjoyable to listen to.   Topicality:  I will base a decision solely on topicality, however; I will offer the Government some leeway in how they interpret the terms of the resolution.   Plan Permutations:  I don’t like to hear the plan change unless the Opposition has offered a plan-plus counter-plan, then I may consider the permutation.   Counter-plans:  I like good counter-plans that are not plan-plus and not topical.  The Opposition needs to demonstrate the net added benefit of selecting their CP.  I find conditional counter plans less effective.  Any DA’s offered should be unique to the Government’s plan and should not impact the counter-plan.   Fiat and Funding:  I accept the notion that adoption of the plan by fiat is acceptable because it “should” be adopted.  However, I’m not a fan of claiming funding by normal means.  How money is raised in a policy round is a serious consideration that is unfortunately too often overlooked.  If the Government defines funding by normal means, I will allow the Opposition to define what that means even if the Government subsequently objects.   DA’s:  I want to see good links and real harms.  If they don’t exist, the Government will have an easy time of convincing me to disregard the arguments.   KRITIC:  Generally I am not I big fan because they are seldom well presented.  If presented, the analysis should be specific to the Government’s case.  Do not present a generic Kritic brief with no explanation of its impact.  If you do, you are wasting precious time.

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Dan Scott - FCC

Critic: Dan Scott Institution: Fresno City College Years Judging L/D:  3 Years Judging Policy: 12 Years Judging Parli: 12     Comments: After a long discussion concerning our judging philosophies, I determined that neither of us have a strong disposition towards any strategies or stylistic approaches. At this point in the game our decisions are based on in-round dialogue.   P.S. I (Eric) would like to know the value of my ballot and I will vote against speed in L/D (if it’s run right). Dan doesn’t really care.

Dana-Jean Smith - Saddleback

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Das Nugent - OCC

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

David Finnigan - CLU

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 2 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School. Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible. Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads. Critically framed arguments: I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.   Topicality is good and it is an important aspect of the debate. Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.   Above all, have fun. Speaker points: you should work hard to earn your points through civility and solid speaking. Performance based arguments: Keep the thinking linear.

DeLorean Thomas - LAVC

n/a

Destiny Barnes - LMU

n/a

Donis Leonard - CSUDH

n/a

Donna Lamb - Moorpark

n/a

Elizabeth Avunjian - UCLA

n/a

Emily Crosby - Concordia

Emily Aldana - PCC

n/a

Eric Garcia - IVC

Eric Garcia - Biola

Gabe Shabat - LAVC

n/a

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.

Hannah Haghighat - Saddleback

n/a

Heather Kelley - Cerritos College

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

n/a

Hillary Phillips - Canyons

n/a

Holland Smith - CSULA

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.

Jackson Spencer - CSULA

n/a

Jamie Layton - Biola

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.

Jay Arntson - PCC

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joe Faina - LAVC

n/a

Joe Kahn - UCLA

n/a

John Meeth - Long Beach

n/a

Johnny Kelly - PCC

n/a

Jonathan Veal - PLNU

Basics   -- Take at least one question during constructive speeches. -- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments. -- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once. -- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff.   -- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans. -- Points of information check back against most spec arguments. -- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not)     I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit.   I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments.     Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.

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.

Kate Totz - LAVC

n/a

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Kayla Cook - PLNU

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

Keith Green - Biola

I strongly prefer K debate. Be warned: if you run a K with Marxism, Biopolitcs, Orientalism/ Po Co you will have to go deeper then a shell.    History: i have coached with Biola for two years, and I competed in Parli debate for two years with Biola University. I also did speech with them for one semester. I also competed for 4 years in STOA and NCFCA Voting: I vote on what you tell to me, provided you’ve put in the work on it. Eg, if you run a really horrid T, that is missing most of its parts, saying “a priori ” doesn’t mean you win.  On Procedurals: if you’ve lost ground, prove it to me. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. I will usually not vote on vagueness and unpopular procedurals except if they are really, really, necessary.    On K’s: I LOVE K’s. PLEASE RUN EXPERIMENTAL K’S IF YOU HAVE THEM. The way to make me happy is to have a unique K, with a CITED LIT BASE, a INTERESTING ALT and run by teams who understand the K they are running.      On Alts: I understand that reject alts are really common and do fit the average criticism, BUT if you run an alt that is more than just reject, it greatly increases your chances of me picking you up. (provided you can defend it)hint: non-violence can be very effective. I like project K’s, I really dislike.  THEORY and LIT bases: I have read extensively from Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Saide, West, Saussure, Derrida, Althusser, Marx, bell hooks, Nietzsche, Barthes, Bhabha, Beauvoir, Edelman, Segwick, Wilderson, Sexton,  Baudrillard, Jameson, Zizek Fannon, Fiere, Chomsky and Bell, and Ghandi.    I am familiar/have read the following schools of theory: Femm, Queer, Po-Co, Marxist, Critical Race Theory, anti-blackness and afro-pessimisnm, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, reader response, intersectionality, and Eco-Fem. I do not like Deep Eco, and I do not enjoy psychoanalytic. I DO NOT LIKE ANTHRO K’s. Other kinds of lit bases I am not as well versed in which means you may have to a run a specific thesis block. I enjoy personal narratives as advocacy provided you make it clear how to weigh them IN ROUND. Same goes with performance debate.    On Speed: gotta go fast! I can follow nearly all CLEAR speed. If you mumble I will not flow it.  On Trichot: I will never vote for you on a fact res. The first person to say the word fact loses. Period. Same for value. Just run policy or I will be mad. Impacts: I like them to be clear, well warranted and realistic. Running nuclear war as an impact is bad, and any good team can beat that. I will vote on critical impacts if you actually terminalize them. Saying their imperialist is not an impact. You need to explain to me the pre/post fiat impacts.  I love GOOD WARRANTED impact scenarios. Just saying “econ improves therefor JOBS” is a good way to lose. Do impact calculus EVEN FOR YOUR CRITICAL IMPACTS. Warrants: have them for important aspects of your advocacy. Preferably for everything. Calling out NO WARRANT is not an argument, it is at the very least, poor defense.. Points of Order: you should call them. I will try to protect as much as I can, for new arguments, but I will miss some. Don’t abuse POO though. CP: I agree with Sean Hansen: “I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt.” Speech: I start at 30spks, and go down. If you get lower than 26 you pissed me off. Interpreting my non- verbal’s : 1. If I knock that I means I like your argument. 2. If I laugh, that’s means something funny has occurred. If you can’t figure out what it is, its probably you. 3. If I stop flowing, that’s bad. Give me things to flow. 4. If I stare at your team during rebuttals I’m listening to a new argument, and wondering if you are going to call it. 5. If I shrug that means I’m not impressed but I can buy it. 6. Nodding quickly means I agree with what you are sating. Speaking of things that piss me off: 1. Any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transist, bi, ablest, imperialist, classist, ethnocentrism, exceptioanlism, patriarchal, and jingoist statements as well as generally being unaware of one’s privilege will KILL your speaker points, and may cost you the round. 2. Repeating arguments. 3. Interrupting speeches. 4. Not taking ANY questions. (taking at least one won’t hurt you) 5. Lying about what the other team has or has not done. 6. Being rude. (don’t tell me their DA is crap, I’ll know) 7. Looking at your competition, unless it’s a diag/expo round.

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kyle Johnson - UCLA

n/a

Lane Schwager - CSULA

n/a

Lexi Weyrick - APU

n/a

Louise Hyland - IVC

n/a

Luis Andrade - SMC

Mark Dorrough - Saddleback

n/a

Marquesa Whearty - Palomar

Martin Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

n/a

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.

McKenna Brand - Concordia

Meaghan Loeffler - IVC

n/a

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Mike Parra - OCC

Mohammed Aly - OCC

Nate Wesko - CSULA

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>

Nicholas Thomas - Palomar

n/a

Nichole Barta - IVC

Nick Matthews - Cerritos College

Hello! I am a full-time coach at Cerritos College. I debated in both high school and college for eight years, and I have been coaching at the college level for the past five years. Here are a few important things to know when I am judging you: 1) I am partly deaf and wear hearing aids, so I will probably sit towards the front of the room. Please speak up a bit and speak at a conversational pace of speed. Otherwise, I may not be able to flow all of your arguments. 2) I am fine with all types of arguments—DAs, CPs, Ks, procedurals, etc.—as long as they are well-executed and well-explained. The caveat: if your argument is particularly novel or if I have never heard it before, I will be less confident in my understanding and evaluation of it. This goes for both kritiks and obscure politics disads. "You haven't explained _______ well enough" is a line that frequently appears in my RFDs.  3) I like to read about what's happening in the world. Since knowledge is subjective, I try to minimize the influence of my reading on my evaluation of your arguments, but I definitely have a bias against arguments which rely on faulty factual premises. 4) An argument consists of three parts: a claim, support, and an implication. The last of these is very important. Why does your argument matter? What is the impact? How does it relate to other arguments? How should it influence my evaluation of the debate? Debaters who directly answer these questions are far more likely to win. Don't leave them up to me to resolve.  5) Similarly, you should focus on comparative evaluations of arguments in your rebuttals. It is insufficient to win that an argument is valid; you also have to prove that it is preferable in some way to what your opponent argued. Focus on argumentative depth over breadth. Narrowing the debate down to a few key issues and kicking out of less important arguments is always a smart play. 6) I am nonverbally expressive as a judge, so pay attention to me. If you see me nodding, you're probably saying something smart and you should emphasize it. If I look skeptical about your argument, I probably am. Use this information appropriately.  If you have more specific questions, I am always happy to answer them before the round. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!

Nick Kjeldgaard - PLNU

I've done seven years of debate and a few years of speech (largely extemporaneous). All four years of college I spent in the open level and competed at national circuit tournaments every year.    My basic philosophy is simple. Tell me why your argument should make you win the round. I've dropped teams who have "won" positions because they couldn't tell me why on earth it mattered.    I'll consider pretty much any type of debate argument you want to run (I'd even vote on inherency if you told me why it mattered/ran it well), but my favorite rounds are policy rounds with some great clash and deep knowledge of the subject.

Noelle Anderson - Moorpark

n/a

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Reagan Swartz - CBU

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

n/a

Reyna Velarde - Santiago Canyon

n/a

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)

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roshawn Walter - UCLA

n/a

Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC

n/a

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!

Sally Nanez - LMU

n/a

Sam Brady - UCLA

n/a

Sarah Leeper - LMU

n/a

Sarah Swope - CBU

n/a

Sarah Crachiolo - LACC

n/a

Sarah Kwon - PCC

n/a

Scott Hughes - FCC

when the affirmative team persents a plan,they take it apon themselves the burden of proof tp prove that their plan should be adopted. they must prove that their plan is an example of the resolution, and they must prove that the plan is an good idea. the affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden using edidence from published sources, to avoid a ridiclous case.how much impact will this plan have? will the plan solve the harmand can it even happen in the real world? what is the problem in the status quo to justify implementation of the plan? is the affirmative's plan happening already,and if not why? is the plan an example of the resolution? does the affirmative teams proposed policy comply with the wording of the resolution?

Sean Connor - OCC

Shaunte Caraballo - IVC

n/a

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

n/a

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..

Stacy Treible - LAVC

n/a

Steve Robertson - Palomar

Thomas Routson - PLNU

RUN WHATEVER ARGUMENT YOU WANT. I am not "anti-com" per se, I just think that you should focus on the arguments you're making and not on the way you look or the way you deliver arguments.   Speaker points will be assigned based on argumentation and nothing else. I really don't believe in these things, but they force us to assign speaker points so whatever. I'll start at 27 and work my way up.   Straight up arguments: I like straight up. I did it for a while and sometimes. If you run your econ disad I'll evaluate it. Give me a weighing mechanism and make sure you tell me in your voters about magnitude, timeframe, and probability.    Theory: Love it, do it. I don't have any stigma against RVI's do whatever you want. Only thing on theory make sure you use impact weighing and impact calculus when discussing the theory position. Let me know how to vote.   Kritiks: I LOVE CRITICAL THEORY. Do it, run your args. Authors/Topics I know: Baudrillard, Marx, Wilderson, Coates, Butler, Ecosophy args including deep eco + ecofem + queer eco. Do it weigh impacts!

Tim Milosch - Biola

Tyler Kline - Saddleback

n/a

Victor Akioyame - CBU

n/a

Victor Cornejo - PCC

n/a

Wendeth Rauf - CBU

n/a

Whitney Shaw - MSJC

n/a

2017 PSCFA "Char Arnold" Spring Championships