Judge Philosophies
Aaron Sabbas - Hired
n/a
Al Arviso - EPCC
n/a
Anasheh Gharabighi - CSUN
n/a
Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Hired
n/a
Brianna Quinterro - Palomar
Cameron Gardner - Biola
Courtney Anderson - OCC
Courtney Gammariello - Biola
Dana-Jean Smith - OCC
<p>~~The first affirmative speaker must present a coherent case that addresses the stock issues of the particular debate. The first affirmative speaker must also provide a case that overcomes their prima facie burden and is topical for me to consider further argumentation. The first negative speaker’s job is to hold the affirmative accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities structuring a debate. Next, I do take kritiks and procedurals into consideration if they are well-structured and well-justified. Competitors must make both aprioi issues if they would like me to look at implications of reasoning or impacts of violating rules prior to the case when making a decision. Indeed, parliamentary debate resolutions are claims of fact, value, OR policy. Furthermore, I only take developed arguments into consideration. Claims must be backed by reasoning and evidence. Claims must also be linked to the plan, resolution, and or value of a debate. Lastly, speakers should not spread as strategy for decreasing their opponents’ comprehension of their case. While I can keep up with a fast rate of delivery, speakers must respect their opponents’ request to clear and or repeat information. If a speaker decides to speed, he or she must provide internal summaries in a normal/conversational rate of delivery. </p>
Dayle Hardy-Short - NAU
<p><strong>Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University </strong></p> <p><br /> <strong>Saved Philosophy:</strong></p> <p><br /> Background:</p> <p>I have not judged NPDA parliamentary debate this year--I have judged BP and Lincoln-Douglas. So my flowing is a little rusty.</p> <p><br /> On speaker points, I look to such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments).</p> <p><br /> Generally:</p> <p>Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team).</p> <p><br /> I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it.</p> <p><br /> I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try.</p> <p><br /> Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments; I consider it to be an a priori argument. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”). I guess it does seem to me that if a case is truly non-topical, then it almost always follows that the position is unfair to the negative--as long as the negative came truly prepared to debate the topic. Thus, the negative does not need to belabor the point--say it and move on.</p> <p><br /> I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution. Please provide me (and the other team) with an actual CP plan text, so I can consider arguments about it as they are made (I really do prefer a written plan text, or please repeat it 2-3 times so I get it written down correctly).</p> <p><br /> I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents.</p> <p><br /> I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole.</p> <p><br /> Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight.</p> <p><br /> A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.</p> <p> </p>
Dymond Galvan - CBU
Evan Ziegler - Hired
n/a
Fernan Balsalubre - Grossmont
Gaby Hidalgo - CBU
Jaimie Owens - Mesa
Jason Hosfield - Palomar
<p><strong>Parliamentary Debate Judging Philosophy</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>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).</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>The issue of rate of speech. </strong></em>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.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>My view on procedurals. </strong></em>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.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>The Critique Debate, Performance Debate and Issues of FIAT. </strong></em>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.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Good luck and be brilliant! </strong></p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jason Hall - SDCC
n/a
Jeremy Murphy - Palomar
Jessica Kwack - CSUN
n/a
Jin Nakama - Mesa
<p>~~As a baseline, I might best be characterized as traditional debate theorist and an ideologue-critic with a symbolic touch. My views can and do change, but there are some things you might like to know about me how I approach debate as an activity…</p> <p>I take a good flow, but I won’t allow my flow to bind me. I will vote on and off the flow in whatever way I think will allows me to render a true and fair decision. As debaters, your role is to debate the resolution and my role is to determine the outcome of a round.</p> <p>I take a humanistic view to debate, and I expect arguments and cases presented are done so in a manner that connects with our experiences. The process of argumentation and evaluation does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the context of experience. This does not mean that arguments must conform to my worldview, but rather, that arguments should be grounded in the world around us. If you’re going to paint a picture of a different world, that’s fine too. In general, it should just make sense within the narrative you choose.</p> <p>#Policy</p> <p>Where the resolution stipulates a call to action, I adopt a stock issues paradigm and artificial presumption. Stock issues answer the questions needed to resolve questions regarding the adoption of the resolution—and so, the Affirmative team must affirm all five stock issues (Inherency, Significance/Harms, Solvency/Advantages) in order to secure the round. Failure to bring a prima facie case, will result in my defaulting to the Opposition team on presumption. Because of the nature of parliamentary debate and its limited prep, my thresholds aren’t as stringent as they are in traditional policy formats, but please know that the less time you spend laying out and defending each stock issue, the weaker they will be and the easier it will be for the Opposition team to negate them. You need only lose one to lose the round.</p> <p>Absent a specific call to action, I will look to Framework first before I look to line-by-line argumentation. The Resolution should remain the focus of the debate, and any impacts on cause should be both reasonable and probable outcomes. Extremism, terminal impacts or arguments that are morally bankrupt hold little sway over me, however, if you think you can argue these points with success, I will listen to what you have to say, albeit with a raised brow.</p> <p>Whether or not the Affirmative team has met their burden upholding the resolution will determine the outcome of the round.</p> <p>#Fact/Value</p> <p>In F/V rounds, I look to the body and quality of arguments and weighing analysis. Arguments should go to the probative and have a clear link to the criterion and how that proves or disproves the resolution. Remember, facts and examples are not arguments. They should be used to support your arguments.</p> <p>#Procedurals</p> <p>I look here first as these are a priori issues. Generally, these should be employed as a means of demonstrating in-round abuse, though if you think you have good enough reason to run it based on competing interpretations, by all means, go for it. I vote on issues of fairness before the impacts of case because fairness as a practice extends beyond the round while the impacts of case are limited to just that round.</p> <p>#Speaker Points</p> <p>Speaker points and ranks are determined based on style and conduct. I was taught to debate traditionally, and I proceed accordingly. When the round begins, address me directly and not the other team during -all- points of interaction. Please stand when you speak. Partner-to-partner communication is strongly discouraged, however you may pass notes. I value etiquette very much and I am likely to punish any perceived hostility by deducting speaker points with liberty.</p> <p>#Speed</p> <p>I view debate as an art and practice in persuasion. Parliamentary debate provides little justification to speak at nigh unintelligible speeds. Speak to me as you would your grandfather, though please not so much as though I were a golden retriever.</p> <p>#Final Thoughts</p> <p>I believe judges have three major functions in this activity; Educator, Adjudicator, and Trustee. As Educator, a duty to help guide and provide perspective on the event; as Adjudicator, the task of deciding the outcome of a round; and as Trustee, the responsibility of preserving and protecting the integrity of the activity as a whole. So, even if you win on my flow, but I find you sorely lacking in good conduct, you will lose on my ballot.</p> <p>I have a great love for this activity and oral tradition. I will judge your round with enthusiasm and give you my very best, without exception. My request of you is that you please give me yours. I’m delighted by good company, so if you see me wandering around during tournaments, feel free to say hello and have a chat!</p> <p>Happy debating and good luck!</p>
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Jordan Menard - Hired
n/a
Liana Koeppel - Cypress
Lindy Lowry - Hired
n/a
Melissa Lazaro - PLNU
<p>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.</p>
Michael Dvorak - NAU
<ol> <li>Please describe your background and experience with debate.</li> </ol> <p>I am fairly new to collegiate debate. I competed in both LD and Policy in high school but for the past four years I was primarily involved in individual events with a few parli rounds of competition during my career. I am currently a Graduate Coaching Assistant for NAU. During my (thus far) limited judging experience, I tend to vote with the more logical argument(s) that was presented. I will vote based on what is said in round unless competitors miss a crucial piece of evidence that trumps their argument that competitors should know about. I don’t want to hear arguments that are outlandish (I won’t vote because you say nuclear war happens if we raise taxes on cigarettes), but I will think outside the box so long as you provide me with sound reasoning to think that way. While I don’t mind speed, make sure I can understand you through watching my feedback. I am looking for high quality, well thought out arguments to judge on. I don’t want to hear arguments that you don’t think or want to win simply because they are a “time-suck” on your opponents. If you have any other questions about my paradigm I will attempt to answer before round if you ask.</p>
Nicholas Butler - ASU
n/a
Nichole Barta - OCC
<p>This judge has a communication background and looks for solid, well-explained arguments. Not a fan of speed or jargon.</p>
Sean Connor - OCC
Stephanie Sorensen - Hired
n/a
Sue Peterson - Chico
<p>I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years. We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven’t looked back. I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions. </p> <p>I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate. I like for affirmatives to have a plan text that clearly identifies the government action that is being advocated and then solvency advocates for that government action. </p> <p>I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas. Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to “write my ballot” for me. </p> <p>The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis. The worst rounds are those with neither of those things. I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic. I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition. I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read – I don’t like cheap shot theory arguments as voting issues) and they need to have clear warrants for why I should vote on the them other than “It’s abusive”. I have no problem with criticisms, but I feel like the limited speech time and having only two speeches usually results in an underdeveloped argument. So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines. </p> <p>Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart!</p> <p>Because NFA-LD has an actual “rule” relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a “nod” in rounds. So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it. My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly – don’t be hypocritical. I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions. Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable. Others, not so much.</p> <p><strong>Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me: </strong>Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality. Underdeveloped theory arguments. Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction. </p>
Victor Rose - CBU
<p>Kritik – I’ll listen and give reasonable ground, but the framework and alternative need to be incredibly solid otherwise I just hear complaints that are unstructured without a reason to vote, I believe in their legitimacy and value but often times execution is lacking</p> <p>Topicality – Excellent, linguistic challenges offer new perspectives</p> <p>D/A – Impact calculus and two world alternatives in the last rebuttals are the most persuasive types of policy/value arguments</p> <p>Speed – Definitely get through your speeches and finish your arguments, if your opponents or myself have trouble following you that is no bueno, yes opposition and myself will clear you</p> <p>Sportsmanship – We’re all here as members of the same community, be polite, enjoy the tournament, and create a positive environment that fosters education</p>