FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Brianna Quinterro - Palomar

Cameron Gardner - Biola

Chris Jamison - CBU

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Elizabeth Calvert - Glendale CC

Gaby Hidalgo - CBU

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

Irma Acosta - EPCC

n/a

Jacob Armstrong - CBU

Jason Hosfield - Palomar

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

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jeff Archibald - Mt SAC

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

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.

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Leah Freeman - Biola

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Linda Farnan - Mesa

n/a

Lorina Schrauger - PLNU

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

Michael Martin - UTEP

<o:p> </o:p>   My judging philosophy is very motivated by good communication skills. I am impressed by individuals who speak clearly and eloquently in-round. Individuals with high skill levels in spreading tend to lose me. I also feel that speech should be as jargon free as possible but, if jargon is necessary, provide a quick explanation. I think that the K should be used appropriately. To elaborate, I feel using the K as the entire neg argument decreases education on the topic at hand and, consequently, allows for less research and general knowledge on the topic. The K can be very effective when used in conjunction with the counterplan or alternative, but I feel it tends to be a weak argument on its own.  I consider myself a tabula rasa as far as the issues go. I do my best to ensure that my own politics do not cloud my judgment, as I feel the debate should go to the team with the best argumentation.<o:p></o:p>

2013 The Ray Dahlin Invitational