Judge Philosophies
Aaron Fullman - Saddleback
Adam Navarro - ELAC
n/a
Adriena Young - CBU
n/a
Al Arviso - EPCC
n/a
Bobby Lebeda - CSUN
n/a
Bria Woodyard - ASU
n/a
Courtney Gammariello - Biola
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>
Derod Taylor - ELAC
n/a
Dymond Galvan - CBU
Eric Yahn - Glendale CC
<p> </p> <p>~• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of<br /> coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)</p> <p>2 years of collegiate parliamentary debate experience</p> <p>3 years of collegiate forensics experience</p> <p>3 years of collegiate forensics coaching experience </p> <p><br /> • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</p> <p>I am a tabula rasa judge. I will vote where you tell me to, as long as it is well articulated and warranted. I'm open to trichotomy and topicality arguments, they serve a purpose so use them if you have to.</p> <p><strong>I am not a fan of Kritiks</strong>, and here's why, I've found that most people don't use them properly. If they are poorly drawn and out of context then I cannot vote on them, theory arguments are impressive yes, but if you don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then your opponant wont either and if I have to piece together a theory for you then you've already lost. Don't try it if you can't handle it, it's better to debate at face value than over extend your reach. </p> <p><br /> • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</p> <p>I am a champion of decorum. I like thank yous and human decency. Be nice to one another and we'll get along fine. I want clean well articulated arguments, as such I tend to favor Toulmens model of argumentation. i.e. This happens because of that for these reasons. Sign post everything always, tell me where you are on the flow, what arguments you are responding to, what your response is and why your response is better. Time that I have to spend flipping through pages is time that I am not flowing you. </p> <p><br /> • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</p> <p>Both on and off case argumentation are key to winning my ballot. I will vote on dropped arguments if you tell me to, but I will not do any leg work for you. If you don't say it, I can't flow it. </p> <p> I will not flow speed, if its too fast and I miss it, thats your fault. Note: I can't flow policy speakers and the "double pump" is one of the most irritating noises ever. I will clear you if I have to but I will take it out of your speaker points. Brownie points* for making me laugh though. </p> <p>• Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and Kritiks</p> <p>I am not opposed to a topicality argument but it needs to be properly structured. Counter plans are fine, but should also be clearly structured. I do not like Kritiks.</p> <p><br /> • Preferences on calling Points of Order</p> <p>Points of order should be used to call out new argumentation in rebuttals, if you don't tell me they're new arguments, they're on my flow to be calculated when voting. Points of order will be ruled on if possible, in rounds with a panel of judges, they'll be taken into consideration. </p> <p>IPDA</p> <p>I view IPDA as a cross between dueling extemps and persuasion. Tell me your story, give me your facts, and defend your findings. <br /> <br /> NFA-LA </p> <p>I never competed in LD, however I have the base knowledge to coach and judge the event. I will flow what you tell me but I will call for cards if thats where you and the opposition draw the lines. Keep it neat, keep it clean, be persuasive.</p> <p> </p> <p>*Brownie points are not redeemable for credit, speaker points or actual brownies. </p>
Evelyn Michaud - Glendale CC
Gavin Wong - Biola
Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback
Jaimie Owens - Mesa
Jeanette Baker - EPCC
n/a
Jeremy Murphy - Palomar
Jess Ayres - NAU
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Jonathan Veal - PLNU
<p>Basics</p> <p> </p> <p>-- Take at least one question during constructive speeches.</p> <p>-- I prefer unconditional arguments and I will listen to conditionality bad arguments.</p> <p>-- Have a copy of the text for advocacies and perms and repeat them at least once.</p> <p>-- I recommend your advocacy engage the topic in some fashion. If you do not, you need justification for why the issue you are discussing comes prior to the resolution and prove there is not a topical version of the aff. </p> <p>-- Avoid delay, time travel and any other artificially competitive counterplans.</p> <p>-- Points of information check back against most spec arguments.</p> <p>-- I enjoy seeing K arguments and policy based arguments alike. Just treat me as if I am not steeped in the lit of whatever argument you’re making. (I am probably not) </p> <p> </p> <p>I am a second year Graduate Student at SDSU studying communication and rhetoric. I was a competitor for four years in parliamentary debate on the national circuit at Concordia University. I spent a year coaching debate at the high school before rejoining the college circuit.</p> <p> </p> <p>I should be fine with the speed your comfortable speaking at, but I value clarity first. I will be sympathetic to teams sitting across from an incredibly unclear or disorganized debater even if I am familiar with the argument. On theory I default to competing interpretations. Debate is a game but games are not fun or useful without clear limits. Competing interpretations allows me to determine those limits. With criticisms, please be clear on what the alternative does. Additionally be clear on the links of the K so I can evaluate a debate with clash. K’s without links will likely lose to the perm. For affirmative K’s use your advocacy to affirm the topic in some way or explain how your K is prior question to the resolution. Debate is inherently performative and I will not discriminate on the nature of that performance. If you have something unique to bring to the table I am willing to listen. If anything I am partial to critical arguments. </p> <p> </p> <p>Disadvantages are great. I want to see disads with strong uniqueness claims and reasonable impacts. Don’t say, “…the economy collapses and nuc war kills us all.” Explain your scenarios thoroughly. Also I have a high threshold on tix scenarios. Make sure there is a specific election or bill that is actually on the docket and explain it thoroughly. Counterplans are cool as long as they are competitive and the timeframe is now. I enjoy the perm debate. Also, perms are a test of competition and a bad perm is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. Have fun and ask any questions you may have.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Lauren Sublett - Glendale CC
<p>• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of<br /> coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)</p> <p>- 4 years of collegiate Parli debate experience, 5 years of collegiate forensics experience</p> <p>- 2 years forensics coaching experience</p> <p>- 15 rounds judged this year to date</p> <p><br /> • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues,<br /> policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</p> <p>As a critic, my approach to decision making is tabula rasa. I will vote on procedural arguments that are well articulated and include articulated abuse, and will look here first. Second, I will look to voters and/or role of the ballot arguments and vote off of my flow. I will not intervene unless absolutely necessary, your job as a competitior is to show me where to vote.</p> <p>• Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</p> <p>Communication skills are key. I don't mind speed, as long as arguments are still coherent and well articulated. Please don't mistake speed for skill. As far as partner communication is concerned, I will only flow words that come out of the assigned speaker's mouth. Please do not puppet your partner, you have a partner for a reason, and I would love to hear what they have to say. Please practice decorum in round, this is not a place to be rude.</p> <p><br /> • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</p> <p> On case argumentation is key, both offense and defense should occur from both teams in order to gain my ballot. If on case argumentation is dropped and becomes a voting issue, my ballot will reflect the drops as a voting issue.</p> <p><br /> • Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks</p> <p>Procedurals and couterplans are acceptable as long as they are warranted and show abuse (procedurals) and kritiks are fine as long as they are clearly articulated and include both:</p> <p>1. Role of the Ballot and</p> <p>2. Alternative</p> <p>Please make sure counterplans:</p> <p>1. are mutually exclusive and competitive</p> <p>2. Counterplans should also include a unique advantage and/or disadvantage</p> <p><br /> • Preferences on calling Points of Order</p> <p>Don't mind points of order if they're actually new arguments (not new examples), I will rule on Points of Order if possible, Points of Order in rounds that include a judging panel will be taken under consideration.</p> <p>Finally, let's have some fun!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Lorina Schrauger - PLNU
<p><strong><em>Judging Background</em></strong></p> <p> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Judging Philosophy</em></strong></p> <p> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> </p> <p> Be communicative. From the rounds I have watched, I have learned that I’m not a fan of speeding. Speak conversationally. Use humor.</p> <p> </p> <p> Argue with ethos—be professional. Not just with your opponents, but also with your partner. Being a shmendrik will not win you points.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Luis CARBAJAL - EPCC
n/a
Matthew Robert Smith - EPCC
n/a
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>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.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Nyeesha Hale - CBU
n/a
Sam Hall - Saddleback
Samantha Rubio - EPCC
n/a