FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - Cypress

Aaron Josephs - SRJC

Aaron Josephs, Santa Rosa Junior College ~~Keep it organized.  The less work I have to do to follow the arguments, the more time I have to concentrate on what is being said. Run whatever you want, but, do not be upset about the consequences. This includes Kritiks, Procedural, or a straight up argument of the resolution.  Preferably, I do not want to be bored in the round, run procedural arguments only when it is necessary, and yes, I will know the difference.  Don't just run them because you can, I don't look favorably on time wasters. I prefer concise arguments that use college level vocabulary.  Keep points on point and pithy as possible. Use voters and sign posts. I cannot honestly say that I am tabula rasa.  It is impossible to leave all biases and knowledge to the side.  However, I am aware of them and do my best to keep my mind as open as possible and as centered as possible on the debate at hand.  However, a certain irritation of mine is false information.  Avoid passing off incorrect concepts, false information and outdated information as acceptable in a debate.  Just because the judge isn't supposed to know any better doesn't mean they will play the fool.  Leave personal anecdotes and examples out of the debate, they have no weight in debate. Politeness counts.  Rudeness will not be tolerated under any circumstances.

Adam Gonzalez - Rio

Alec Lara - Moorpark

n/a

Alex Pineda - PLNU

I competed in parli for four years. Two were in the community college circuit and the other two with Point Loma Nazarene University. This is my first year out of the activity and I’ve spent it coaching and judging for Loma. I weigh your arguments in the order you prioritize them. I’ll listen to any arguments you present, but those with warrants obviously trump those without. Impact weighing in the rebuttals makes defcision calculus easy. That being said, if the impact calc is messy or forgotten, I default to probability and proximity over magnitude. I have a special place in my heart for systemic impacts, BUT that doesn’t mean I won’t go for your nuclear war scenario. Also, I do my absolute best to not do work for any team, so if there’s an argument you find absolutely critical, I think it’s your job to make it the most important in the round instead of a passing comment. If your off-case straight solves or outweighs case (and you make these arguments) then it’s cool to not go line by line on case, just remember to include these arguments in your shell. I have a high threshold for abuse arguments, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for your procedural if it’s poorly responded to and you go for it. Counter plan theory is what you make it. If you say a perm is a test of competition, then that’s what it is. If the perm turns into your advocacy, then that’s what it is. I prefer that you call points of order. I don’t think speed is a problem, but signposting is an absolute must if you spread. I like to keep a tight flow so knowing where you want me to flow your arguments is critical to getting my ballot. Debate is what you make it, so whether you want the round to be a game, a forum for the discussion of your critical arguments, or a platform for your performance, justify your approach and you’ve got me on board! If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me questions before the round.

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

n/a

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Andrew Martinez - OCC

Anthony Cuomo - Long Beach

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

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

Barbara Gaustewitz - PLNU

<h2>Barbara Gausewitz - Point Loma Nazarene University</h2> <h3> </h3>   Background of the critic: Four years Parli at PLNU. Two plus years coaching/judging Parli, NFA LD, and NFL LD   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock issues,    policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I believe that debate is a strategy game, so I will listen to any argument a debater can make, and it is the job of the debaters to prove to me why it is a winning argument. I do my best not to do any work for you; your arguments need to have warrants and you need to weigh impacts to explain to me why you win.   If you don’t provide a clear framework I will default to net benefits and I will default to weighing the impacts that are most proximal and probable first.     Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   The more time I spend away from the activity, the more I realize that communication is important in grown-up life, and I wish debate did a better job teaching and encouraging real communication skills.    That being said, I view debate as a strategy game. If "presentation" is part of your strategy, use it. If not, then don't.    I hate lying, rudeness, and whining. If you make a claim that sounds weird to me, I WILL fact check it before I make a decision, so don't claim anything you don't know know to be true.    You probably won’t speak too fast for me to flow, but if you aren’t clear about where you are, I won’t know where to write those arguments, and it will be hard for me to evaluate them. If I'm looking looking confused and not writing your arguments, it is probably a good idea to pause and tell me where you are or what you mean.    Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:  The most important thing you can do is weigh impacts. I think it is fine for the neg to concede or drop case as long as they have something that outweighs case, and as long as you can explain to my why it outweighs case.   Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks: I have a high threshold on abuse positions, but again, I’ll listen to anything. I was a kritikal debater, and I like to hear kritikal arguments as long as they are well done. I don’t love politics DAs, but I vote on them all the time. I don’t have a head for economics, so if you have a complicated econ case, make sure that it is well explained. For me it doesn't get any better than a well constructed case and a pile of well warranted case turns from the Neg.    Preferences on calling Points of Order: I don’t do any work for you, and that includes calling your points of order. If you hear a new argument, call it, or else I’m going to flow it like it has been there all the time.   Other notes: Have fun, be nice. Debate is not nearly as serious or important as people treat it. I always vote for the team that better articulates and WEIGHS impacts. If I disclose after round, feel free to ask questions but for the love of God do not argue with my decision. Please avoid made-up words like "secondarily" and "specitivity."

Ben Lohman - OCC

Ben Bates - LACC

n/a

Bianca Nasser - OCC

Billy Hatton - Canyons

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brent Tietz - Concordia

Brianna Lamanna - Concordia

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

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

Bryan Malinis - Long Beach

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Carlos Flores - CSUN

n/a

Carolina Palmer - Cerritos College

Chase Harrington - Concordia

Chathi Anderson - IVC

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

Chris Gail - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. The more realistic your arguments the better. Be careful trying to win using debate theory alone.

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Christy Wright - PLNU

Cindy Phu - PCC

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

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Crystal Guest - IVC

Crystal Lane Swift - Mt SAC

I have extensive NPDA debating, judging, and coaching experience.  This is my favorite event.  It's your round; debate the way you want.  I will flow your arguments and use your guidance to determine how the arguments should be weighed out in the round.  I think the most important positions in the round are procedurals:  resolutionality/trichotomy, topicality, specifications, etc.  That said, they don’t automatically win because you mention them.  I am open to listening to kritiks, but I hardly ever vote for them.  I need a clear, non-permuted alternative to vote for K.  I do not appreciate rudeness.  Please have fun, be clear, and tell me where to vote and why.  Finally, I will not disclose which side I voted for unless instructed to by the tournament.

Daniela Fuentes - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Test 123

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diana Fernandez - IVC

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

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

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Rodriguez - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Eric Solis - Mt SAC

Erin Harris - OCC

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

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Gary Rybold - IVC

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

Gary Rybold - UCLA

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

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.)

Hal Sanford - SRJC

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, it's length  does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                                               What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.                                                                                                                                            AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative. In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).  In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them. NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.  Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable. In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.  What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really? What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are: 1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.  Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I'll really resist.  Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad. Critiques:  Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that  "we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or  Sterling, I might buy it.  They're eloquentus-maximus.  Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?     SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request. SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also. JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.  Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together." TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Helene Saghieh - IVC

Henry Navarrete - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - ELAC

n/a

Jacob Armstrong - CBU

James Dabbagian - OCC

James Heller - Rio

James Markos - Glendale CC

n/a

Janene Whitesell - Solano

I will listen to any type of argument as long as it is explained and impacted. Speed is an issue for me, hence if you don’t see my pen moving you might want to slow down. I want the participants to break the round down for me. Tell me why your arguments are superior to the others in the round. I do not like T in general but will vote on in round proven abuse.  Overall have a good time parli is supposed to be fun.

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 - Glendale CC

Jeff Somano - Long Beach

Jen Page - IVC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jerome Davis - PCC

Jessi Farmer - Grand Canyon

Jessica Fong - OCC

Jessica Rush - CBU

Jesus Caro - Glendale CC

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Jonathon Cottrell - Concordia

Joseph Evans - Long Beach

Debated for South Bay Faith Academy in HS. Debated for UCLA About me: I have been involved in forensics for 7 years. I debated HS policy for 3 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate (I am currently in my 4th year of competition). I view debate as an 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: Being involved in policy and parli (only), I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told other wise, 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 25 cards on Zizek, 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 very high threshold for T. I believe that there needs to be articulated abuse for me to consider voting on it. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I HATE T. I actually like hearing T debates... I just have a high threshold on T when the neg runs it just to run it. 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 Campbell - Cerritos College

Joseph Laughon - Concordia

Josh Kammert - CBU

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Josh Miller - LAVC

n/a

Juan Victorio - SMC

n/a

Juliana Damniano - IVC

Justin Harris - Concordia

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Katrina Taylor - Cerritos College

Kenji Ogata - IVC

Kevin Calderwood - IVC

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia University Irvine, Irvine Valley College   Saved Philosophy:   Quick Notes   ---I prefer policy arguments. ---You should take take at least one question in every constructive. ---All advocacies in the debate should be unconditional. ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once. ---Framework should never be a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate. ---Topicality should always be a voting issue, and is never genocide. Spec arguments are a waste of time. Permutations are tests of competition. ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition, process ((veto cheato, con-con)), etc.). Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place. ---I use should a lot in my paradigm. This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot. All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion. Background: I have participated in competitive debate for the last eleven years. I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format. However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences. As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a hegemonist. I study rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication. I have written most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones. However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at. If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate. Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me. This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate. I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running. Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents. I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard. Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense. However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described. Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic. Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic. Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue. It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc). Debates are not won or lost on framework. If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate. I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric. Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate. Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate. In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win. Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism. Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit. I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better. I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration. I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp. Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse. If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive. Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team. Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win. Counterplans should be unconditional. You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team. You should take a question about the text of your counterplan. Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.) I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans). With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness. Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans. Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan. Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition. Permutations should never be advocacies. Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations. Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of). Politics is generally boring and not well researched. Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately. Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate. Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts. Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable. Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues. I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc). If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down. I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool. Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters. Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide. It should be a voting issue. I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability. Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”. Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is. Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is. This is what we call a link. I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments. Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language). I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there. My average was somewhere around a 27.8 for the year. As a final note, I really hate cheap shots. I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments. Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect. I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot. I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive. Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Taucher - Chapman

n/a

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Lauren Patterson - Mt SAC

Leah Freeman - Biola

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Liz McGarry - Chico

Liza Rios - IVC

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

Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC

Loretta Rowley - Long Beach

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Manny Morales - CMC

n/a

Marcia Regina - SMC

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Mark Crossman - El Camino

Matt Volz - IVC

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school. I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points. Speed and Delivery I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request. Procedurals For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me. Trichotomy Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them. Counterplans and Permutations Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy. Kritiks and Critical Arguments I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”). Performance Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting againstyour opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too. Criteria and Impact Calculus Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, 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 over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that. Contradictory Arguments I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up. Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner. RVI’s As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances. Order of Evaluation I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted). Labels and Unusual Arguments As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on. Misc. You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument.  I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect. Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.

Matthew Ward - IVC

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

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

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

Michael 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 Rodriguez - IVC

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Mohammed Aly - OCC

Molly Quirk - Moorpark

n/a

Morgan McNally - El Camino

Natalie Baghdassarian - IVC

Nathan Wensko - Long Beach

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Neil Glines - Solano

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

Nichole Barta - OCC

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

Nick Williams - IVC

Nitzan Harrell - Grossmont

Paul Davis - Azusa

Pauline Moran - Chapman

n/a

Peter Ludlam - Biola

Philip Coleman - Cerritos College

Rene Ucros - OCC

Robert Black - Glendale, CA

Roger Willis - OCC

When Judging parliamentary debate I look for solid arguments that are well explained. I do not mind the use of jargon, but I do not care for speeches that contain too much jargon and not enough substance. I do not like spreading. I enjoy an interesting position, even if there is a performance case, but I vote on who adequately argued their position on the resolution presented. I am happy to judge value, fact, or policy debates.   I have little experience judging or watching Lincoln Douglas debate, but I would look for well supported cases with appropriate evidence.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Rosylyn Rhee - OCC

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

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

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed. Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps. I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it. If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.     Specifics: Speaker Points: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range. If you do the things in my “General Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher. Topicality: Hey Aff…be topical. T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be smart. I’ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components . I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible. Critiques: I enjoy critical theory…that being said I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you persuade. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K. So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well. If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen. Just make sure you run them in a way that is still topical. Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Side Note: In NPDA I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said. I got it the first time…why are you winning? Speed: I think in general speed can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can’t do that and go fast slow down. If someone calls clear…please do so. Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear.”

Samantha Abraham - OCC

Sandesh Potla - Fullerton Col

Sarah Sherwood - Glendale, CA

Sarah Crachiolo - Long Beach

Sean Carmody - Vanguard

Sean Connor - CSULA

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

Shawn O'Rourke - OCC

Sherris Minor - PLNU

Sherris Minor- PLNU  I have been in and out of debate since 2003. I competed in parli for 3 years and have since coached parli/ LD for 4 years, this is my 3rd year coaching since I came back to the activity in 2010. My background is in political science, anthropology and philosophy. My current course of study is in conflict management (specifically conflict transformation) and the rebuilding process through a critical gender lens.  I have judged over 100 rounds of parliamentary debate this year and about 60 rounds of LD debate.  I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  Framework is important to me because it sets up how you want me to evaluate the round and should help you prioritize what arguments you are winning and why that means I vote for you.  Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter to me. Most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become an issue.  However, The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function.   Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot  Procedurals are awesome, but I do not vote on potential abuse. Please have a clear interpretation. I default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. I don’t vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”    I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. You need to explain your links don’t just say they link tell me how they link/ why that link is important. These discussions tend to get very convoluted it is your job to clearly explain your argument(s), I shouldn’t need an interpreter to understand what your k says.     Counter plans are a great strategy tool but they should be competitive and have some sort of net benefit to them beyond this doesn’t link to the disad. Don’t kick an unconditional counterplan in front of me I will not vote for you.  Politics is a good strategy but please try to use a true or at least plausible scenario.  Theory is awesome please explain to me why your theory/ interpretation of theory means you win the debate don’t just blip out any perm is severance/ or intrinsic. This is one not true but also doesn’t explain how your theory works in the context of this debate.  I believe all perms need to have a text. This helps to show me in a textual sense how your perm theory functions. Also it provides something stable in the round that I can look at when I am making a decision. I think for the most part that Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy but if you have a compelling reason why your perm could be the latter please run it.  I believe the debate should be smaller by the end of the round don’t be afraid to kick arguments. Issue selection is great because you can get more in depth on arguments you think you are winning.  Warrants for your claims are awesome because that means your arguments are not just tag lines. I will not fill in the blanks for you so please give a clear tag and warrant for why you argument is true. This is critical in debates with competing uniqueness stories where the objective is for me to decide which scenario is the most true.   Impact calculus and prioritization are important to me. It allows you to tell me where to vote and why I look there before I look at other arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you, you set the framework for the round I expect you to tell me how I vote in the world of your framework.  Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run.  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.  If there is anything I missed please feel free to ask.

Simon Kern - CSUN

n/a

Stephanie Fleming - PCC

Stephen Thomas - CBU

Steve Robertson - Saddleback

Taureanna Shimp - Chico

Tim Milosch - Biola

Tom Proprofsky - IVC

Tori Trinkeller - Chico

Trevor Stutzman - Mesa

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. '

2013 PSCFA "Don Brownlee" Spring Championships Tournament

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - Cypress

Aaron Josephs - SRJC

Adam Gonzalez - Rio

Alec Lara - Moorpark

Alex Pineda - PLNU

Allan Axibal-Cordero - Chapman

Ana Petero - Solano

Andrew Martinez - OCC

Anthony Cuomo - Long Beach

April Griffin - Cerritos College

Ashley Graham - El Camino

Barbara Gaustewitz - PLNU

Ben Lohman - OCC

Ben Bates - LACC

Bianca Nasser - OCC

Billy Hatton - Canyons

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brent Tietz - Concordia

Brianna Lamanna - Concordia

Brianna Nishie - Vanguard

Bryan Malinis - Long Beach

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Carlos Flores - CSUN

Carolina Palmer - Cerritos College

Chase Harrington - Concordia

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chris Gail - Santiago Canyon

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Christy Wright - PLNU

Cindy Phu - PCC

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Crystal Guest - IVC

Crystal Lane Swift - Mt SAC

Daniela Fuentes - Mt SAC

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diana Fernandez - IVC

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Duane Smith - LAVC

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Rodriguez - Mt SAC

Eric Solis - Mt SAC

Erin Harris - OCC

Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Gary Rybold - IVC

Gary Rybold - UCLA

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

Hal Sanford - SRJC

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Helene Saghieh - IVC

Henry Navarrete - Mt SAC

Hilary Boerger - Biola

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

J. Edward Stevenson - ELAC

Jacob Armstrong - CBU

James Dabbagian - OCC

James Heller - Rio

James Markos - Glendale CC

Janene Whitesell - Solano

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jeff Somano - Long Beach

Jen Page - IVC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jerome Davis - PCC

Jessi Farmer - Grand Canyon

Jessica Fong - OCC

Jessica Rush - CBU

Jesus Caro - Glendale CC

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

Jonathon Cottrell - Concordia

Shawn O'Rourke - OCC