Judge Philosophies
Carl Simmons - CBU
Cindy Phu - Chapman
n/a
Damon Hines - Saddleback
Daniel Elliott - Biola
<p>Experience:</p> <ol> <li>Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.</li> <li>Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.</li> </ol> <p>Decision making:</p> <ol> <li>I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.</li> <li>I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.</li> <li>I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.</li> <li>Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.</li> </ol> <p>Presentation:</p> <ol> <li>I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.</li> <li>So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.</li> <li>Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.</li> </ol> <p>On Case arguments:</p> <ol> <li>I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.</li> <li>I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.</li> </ol>
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
<p> Test 123</p>
Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback
Ian Sharples - PLNU
<p>Ian Sharples<br /> Fall 2012</p> <p><br /> DEBATE EXPERIENCE</p> <p>- 2003-2006: Mostly LD and Parli at Centennial High School in Bakersfield, CA. I also did Congress and one tournament of Public Forum.<br /> - 2006-2011: NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA-LD at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA.<br /> - Currently Coaching at PLNU</p> <p><br /> JUDGING INFO</p> <p>- My general philosophy could be described as 'argumentative anarchy': if you can justify it, you can go for it. But, like everyone, I still have biases, which is what judge philosophies are for.<br /> - I am willing to vote on any argument that is made in the round, but I have no problem ignoring things that are not arguments.<br /> - My basic threshold for an argument is that it must be warranted, internally coherent and have a terminalized impact.<br /> - Overall strategic choices almost always have greater influence on my decisions than line-by-line details. Knowing how you are going to win the round before it starts will go a long towards a ballot in your favor.<br /> - Most debates are lost in the LOC/MG or won in the MOC/PMR. The first scenario is far more common.<br /> - Most of the rounds I watch are in PSCFA. I have noticed that 'National circuit' teams generally do a better job of using strategy and warrants compared to 'PSCFA/Com' teams. Problems with internal coherence apply to both circuits.<br /> - I haven't seen too many rounds this year between really good teams that are evenly matched, so I am still learning how I evaluate those situations. But for the rounds I have seen, line-by-line is more important, because they tend to be doing the basics right.</p> <p><br /> POSITION SPECIFICS</p> <p>- Framework debate is important, but I usually resolve it by evaluating case and K on the same level. The exception is when teams give clear and justified prioritization.<br /> - I think all positions are conditional all the time, unless otherwise stated.<br /> - On topicality: I go for an abuse/fairness paradigm in Parli, and competing interps in LD. The difference has to do with changing v. stable resolutions.<br /> - For other procedurals/theory: Out of laziness, I tend to default to an abuse paradigm, because that is what I am used to with T, but I am extremely vulnerable to competing interps, so just say it. The reason has to do with the implications of this theory debate on future parli rounds.<br /> - I like the strategic value of critical arguments, but I still think most K lit is not very good. I will listen to it in round.<br /> - I like positions that play with the boundries of argument, or radically reimagine what a competitive debate round could be. I enjoy good theory debates.</p> <p><br /> OTHER STUFF</p> <p>- Points: 27 = should break at this tournament, 29 & up = top tier for this tournament. I use half points.<br /> - PSCFA has a rule that you can't tie points, and I've gotten in the habit of following it. Apologies in advance if this inadvertently screws you out of a speaker award.<br /> - Physical limitations on flowing: I cannot hear in my left ear, and my typing speed is ok but not super fast (but still faster than I can write). Super fast and intricate rounds (which I love) will give me problems, sorry.<br /> - Like: Aristotle, Locke, Mill, Foucault / Dislike: Marx, Kierkegaard, Lyotard, Derrida / Entertaining: Nietzsche, Friedman, Hitchens, Zizek<br /> - Things I am currently interested in: Neuroscience, Political Psycology, Cities, Early Modernity.</p>
Jeff Archibald - Mt SAC
Jonathan Burrello - Biola
n/a
Joshua Kammert - CBU
Keith Townsend - EPCC
n/a
Kevin Sanford - Mt SAC
Larry Radden - Saddleback
Liana Koeppel - Cypress
Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback
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>
Michael Brooks - UTEP
n/a
Paul Davis - Azusa
Rebekah Bell - EPCC
n/a