FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

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  Avoid passing off incorrect concepts, false information and outdated information as acceptable in a debate.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.

Albert Tam - SFSU

Alexis Litzky - SFSU

Alexis Litzky - USF

I debated for 1.5 years in Parliamentary debate, then 3 years in policy debate at SF State. I have been coaching CEDA/NDT debate primarily, and have started getting back in to Parli and LD over the past 4 years. I am now a professor and coach at City College of San Francisco trying to bring back parliamentary and policy debate. On the CEDA topic I’ve judged ~30 debates this year, and a handful of Parli debates. I believe debate is above all a method of inquiry and mode for educational enhancement. Although most of my debating and coaching career has had undertones of critical theory, I began with a classic orientation towards the DA/T/CP strategy as well and have a special place for it in my heart. More specifically: I am as tabula rasa as I can be while still maintaining an educational space for everyone involved. Mostly what this means is that I have a low threshold for what constitutes an argument, as long as it is warranted and well explained. And by well explained it should be clear to me and the other team. I will flow everything that you say in the debate, and try to evaluate the arguments the way you want. However, I personally don’t think of the debate in bullet points but more like webs of information that overlap and intersect. So I put more priority on the conceptual framing and logical flow of argument over blippy one liners and extended assertions without the warrants. Theory: I think that theory has an important place in debate but generally you have to do a decent amount of work to convince me to vote someone down for it as a sole argument. I am generally more persuaded by “reject the arg not the team” unless you can uniquely prove why this is important for debate equity or the topic of discussion. Framework/T: I think education trumps fairness most times and I love when I see creativity here. I am willing to vote under whatever guide you want just let me know how that works and why that’s more beneficial. In other words, don’t just assume that we have the same understanding of fairness or predictability. Case debate: Love it. Do it. Do it often. This is one of the most under-utilized argument spaces in debate, IMHO. CP/DA: Roll with it if you want. Just tell me the ways that they interact with the plan specifically; like which advantages you want to solve for, what the NB’s are, and if there are any external impacts. I do not assume a CP is unconditional unless the negative says it is, but I have voted on conditional CP theory when well warranted. K: Most of my experience was in this frame of debate so I can get on board with you but don’t assume that I know anything about your authors or what they say. It’s your burden to explain the concepts and their application. POO (I can’t believe that is the acronym for points of order, but here we are): I don’t have any preferences. If you call for one, I’ll stop the timer and listen to both sides, and take it under consideration. I’ll let you know after the debate if it was important or influential to my decision. Remember, debate is fun. And when you’re having fun, I am having fun. So be nice and enjoy this activity while you can.

Andrea Adams - Ohlone

The short version: It’s your time; you do what you want. I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count. I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)  As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.  I’m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.) On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line) Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won’t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page. Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don’t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more ‘being present’ approach unless told otherwise by either team. Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I’ll vote on anything. See first line. Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round. Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don’t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn’t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech). I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me. I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Ariel Alvero - SFSU

Bettina Brockmann - San Jose State

Dan Leahy - DVC

Jaclynn Hawkins - CCSF

Jacob Holleman - MJC

Jared Tumazi - SFSU

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jason Hough - Hartnell

n/a

Jim Dobson - LPC

n/a

Joanne Babin - CCSF

Joseph Kimple - SRJC

Kelsey Caldwell - Chico

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College Most Important Criteria I'm a tabula rasa judge, so I look to vote on the flow where the debaters tell me to. If one team tells me the sky is orange and the other doesn't respond, the sky is orange for the purpose of the round. I will, however, intervene if the other team says the sky is blue as I'll be inclined to give weight to the argument I know is true. I want to see concrete, real world impacts on your argumentation. I won't do any extra work for you in order to give you the ballot, so you need to make sure you impact out all of your arguments. At the end of the round, I'm also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you'll might have a hard time getting my ballot if you lay out an unlikely human extinction scenario if your opponent has more reasonable impacts). Predispositions The only thing I'm predisposed to not want to vote on is a K. I want to hear a debate on the issues, one that was prepped as much as can be expected in the 20 minutes of prep time as opposed to something you've been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I'll still vote on it even though I won't want to. If the other team, however, handles it well enough, my threshold to reject a K is pretty low. Otherwise, I have no issues voting on T or any other procedural. I prefer to see arguments on the resolution, but have no problem voting on a procedural if it's warranted. In addition, on topicality (and related positions) I prefer potential abuse as opposed to proven abuse as far as what I need to vote on topicality. I feel that running a position that specifically does not link to the affirmative's case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I'd rather you spend the 30-60 seconds you spend running that position making arguments that really matter in the round. Topicality can be evaluated just fine in a vacuum without having to also complain about how it prevented you from running X, Y, or Z position. The affirmative team is topical or they aren't, and no amount of in round abuse via delinked positions (or lack thereof) changes that. Additionally, I tend to default to reasonability over competing interpretations, but will listen to arguments as to why I should prefer competing interpretations. Speed/Jargon/Technical I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I'm not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don't speed the other team out of the room. If they call "clear" or "slow", slow down. Additionally, my feelings on speed are also directly related to clarity. My threshold on speed will drop precipitously if your clarity and enunciation is low, and conversely is higher the more clear you remain at speed. NOTE: I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It's your debate, it's up to you to tell me to strike new arguments (or not). My feeling is that me protecting on the flow does not allow the other side to make a response as to why it isn't a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say. NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES: Because of the non-limited prep nature of the event, I am far more receptive to K debate in this event. Additionally, given that there are no points of order, I also will protect on the flow in rebuttals.

Koji Takahashi - BerkeleySpeech

The round is yours and it is your job to tell me what I should vote on and why. I’m down for any argument as long as you win on it and tell me exactly why it is important and how I should evaluate it. Good rebuttals make my job easier, so please use them wisely. I will vote first and foremost on the arguments that are brought up as voters in the rebuttals and prefer to only evaluate other things on the flow if the arguments are a wash. I’m fine with some speed, but my flow is not as fast as it used to be and I prefer to be a flow judge. If you want me to have all your argument on my flow, I would not recommend going full speed. Medium fast. I prefer systemic impacts to outlandishly big ones, but it really is up to you to explain to me why I should be voting for any impact and I will defer to you. If an argument is a wash, I’ll defer to me and I like systemic impacts better. Please understand perm theory and be able to explain it well. I’ve judged a lot of rounds that were lost because open teams didn’t understand how to make basic perm arguments, so don’t let that happen. Down for Ks, but make sure the alt is sound. I am a firm believer that the rhetoric in round is important and am super down for pre-fiat impacts, but please make the arguments good. Also, I’m super down with queer theory. PET PEEVES -Shallow dehum arguments I don’t particularly like most dehum arguments that are thrown around in debate and don’t consider it a terminalized impact on its own unless you explain exactly how your conception dehum functions. If you don’t, my default is to view it the way I’ve been trained to-- as a social process (i.e., poverty is not inherently dehumanizing—people who perceive or portray those in poverty as living or being subhuman are dehumanizing). If someone throws out dehum in an uncritical way, call them on it and I will be happy. -Root cause arguments that are just wrong I know how root cause arguments function strategically, but I don’t like the way most people run them. They are far too often either wrong or poorly articulated to the point of sounding wrong. Run them if you feel you have solid analysis to defend it, but be warned. -Teams that bite their own K Please don’t do this. If your opponents do it, please don’t let them get away with it. I’m down for good Ks, but I really don’t like people telling me what I have to do with my ballot if they won’t do it with the rest of their advocacy.

Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU

MATTHEW LANE-SWANSON - SMC

New for the 17-18 season - looked at the poem and was like..... damn, this is old I see debate as a contest of two sides of an argument.  The aff picks the argument and the neg responds to it.  Many times, the aff will select their comments based on a resolution that is provided by a third party.  Personally, the topic and customs of the round matter not.  What is the point of me trying to enforce rigid standards of competition that are not necessarily agreed upon by the individuals participating in the debate?  As such, I see my position in the round not as a participant but as an participant-observer.  I am someone who will enter into the field of debate with you and observe/record the data you present to me.  However, unlike traditional P-O methods I would prefer for you to do the analysis for me.  At the end of the round I will render a decision based off of the arguments in the round as instructed by the participants of the debate.              To unpack this further, to perform what I consider a debate there should be two sides to the debate.  Unfortunately for the negative, the burden they are given is to refute the affirmative.  The reason I feel this is unfortunate is that I believe the affirmative needs to offer an advocacy that would be better than the sqo.  This does not require the aff to pass a policy through the usfg/state/whatever agency in my opinion.  This does not grant the aff a free ticket to do whatever.  While I may not have those requirements the negative team may and they may even have compelling reasons why lacking those concepts is reason enough for you to lose the round.  The purpose of this is to explain that the debate I am to observe is up to you to determine as participants in nearly all ways.  The only rules I will enforce are structural such as start/end round times, speaker times, and speaker order.             In my RFDs there are two things I like to cover, arguments you did make and arguments you could have.  The best RFDs I have seen starts with what people are going for in the rebuttals and they work backwards in the debate and I have tried to implement this style into my RFDs.  Sometimes I want to run arguments by you and see what you think of them.  Not because they are the “right” argument but because I respect your opinion and wonder what you have to say on the matter.  Does that mean it affects the round?  No, of course not.  However, if we assume that all learning from debate happens in the round and not after I think we are selling ourselves out.  Lots of people, the greatest people, like to ask my opinion on what I would do in whatever situation and I think it is a great way to learn a little more by asking these hypothetical questions.             When it comes to speaker points I see a 30 A+; 29.5-29.9 A; 29-29.4 A-; 28.8-27.9 B+; B 28.4-28.7 B; 28.0-28.3 B-; 27.8-27.9 C+; C 27.4-27.7 C; 27.0-27.3 C-; 26.8-26.9 D+; D 26.4-26.7 C; 26.0-26.3 D-; Less than 26 = I will be looking for your coaching staff after the round.               I feel as though there are certain places my mind wanders in a debate that I am forced to fill in for debaters and so I wanted to share some of those concerns with you.  First, impact prioritization.  I often times will have one team saying nuclear war will happen and the other talking about poverty and nobody compares the two arguments with one another.  They just claim to win their impact and that impact is bad.  What happens when the aff and neg both win their impact?  Nobody really 100% wins their impacts ever so for however likely the impact is what should that do for my evaluation of the round?  Basically, the whole two worlds theory assumes a vision of the round where your impacts do not interact with the other sides impacts.  Would an overnight economic collapse with a poverty impact make a nuclear war more or less likely to occur?  Maybe you could tell me.  Second, how to evaluate the round.  I think this comes back to a larger question of impact calculus.  I feel that teams debating in front of me who are surprised by my decisions do not generally compare their impacts against the other team’s as often/thoroughly as they should.  They know they have won their impact, poverty kills and that’s bad, but they think I will just vote on that because I have a bleeding heart.  I am not going to fill in for you so do not ask me to.  I want rich explanations of concepts, especially later in the debate.  It is not that I do not understand the concepts but it is your job to explain them to me so I can evaluate them fairly.  When you say something without a warrant I just write n0w in the next cell, my abbreviation for no warrant, and move on.  I will not fill in the warrants for you or apply arguments to places you do not.  I might talk to you about doing so after the round but it will not play a part in the round.    Previous philosophy: Thoughts from Matthew Please speak up, I am still really hard of hearing.  I do sit in the back of the room almost exclusively to make you work harder.  If you want me to not sit where I want ask me to move, I have no problem moving.   Debate has been my home since 2k When it came to competing I did OK It is 2015 and I am still here Doing something that is so dear Before you decide that I am a worth a strike Question if that is really what you would like I have yet to go Mad as a Hatter don’t you fear But some of this may not be what you want to hear   Where do we come from and what have we seen Debate is about all of these things and more if you know what I mean Debate has something to offer us all Perform it how you want that is your call But when you say “new off”, condo, I squeal with sooooo much joy… Skipping that strat is something you may want to employ   Don’t just deposit your arguments, I am more than a purse We all have our own rhyme rhythm and verse As fast or as slow before time has been met Say what you can, leave no regret Teach me these things you believe I will listen to any argument that you conceive   Many of you will pretend to be the state If you don’t it won’t make me irate Yet, I read as much of your lit as you did of mine I say this now so you don’t again hear me whine Explain what you mean and mean what you say Wouldn’t want that pesky discourse getting in your way   Do you think this is some kind of game Probability magnitude timeframe Impacts are not dead, they represent life Be aware of where you point your knife   Now comes the end of my little story Go off and live – fight for your glory I wish you the best with an open heart As a judge, my time is yours, until our ways part

Mark Shilstone - Hartnell

n/a

Michael Andreas - Chico

Natalie Kellner - Ohlone

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Nicole Sandoval - Chabot

Phil Krueger - SMC

BACKGROUND: I have competed 7.5 years in forensics, four in high school and 3.5 in college. While in high  school I debated LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Parli. In college debate, I debated 3.5 years  doing Parli. I am currently an assistant coach for Saint Mary’s College where I coach parli and  IEs, and this is my first year coaching. I have judged approximately 40-50 rounds this year.  TRICHOTOMY: I recognize that there is a trichotomy to debate. Certain words, such as “believe” and “is” don’t  carry with them calls to action. It would be unfair for Opp if Gov were to run a Plan in a clear  non-policy round. However, I think fact and value debating harm debate overall by taking the  focus away from specific policies and how they directly affect people. As such, I prefer policy  rounds and if both sides don’t have a problem with it, I would prefer that every round is policy. PARADIGM: The only way for a debater to win a round is to outdebate the other side. I know this sounds  simple, but I will not do any work for you. If Side A says something that is not true and Side B  doesn’t contest it, then it belongs true for the purposes of the round. However, I am not tabula  rasa. I carry my philosophy on debate into the round, so by definition I cannot be tabula rasa. I would generally say that I have a policymaker’s view of who wins the round. Whoever can  prove that their plan benefits the world more than it harms it, wins. I listen and respect all  arguments, but the 1% solvency rule weakens link developments. I am far more likely to vote for  a lesser impact than nuclear war with a greater likelihood of that impact than nuclear war with a  bare minimum of risk.  I also don’t follow stock issues. I don’t require inherency. COMMUNICATION: Debate is a game, but well-structured arguments are key to winning that game. I am a flow  judge. I will not vote for a well-communicated argument if it is not warranted.  I vote on dropped  arguments that are clearly extended by the other side. Not addressing an argument is a strategic  choice made by a side.  Therefore extending that dropped argument goes a long way with me.  Most speed is okay, but I will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. ON-CASE DEBATE: Case debate helps, especially the Oppostion. I view presumption as a very light burden to break.  Once Gov. comes up and articulates a plan with some solvency and an advantage, presumption  switches over to Gov. Therefore Opp. teams should always debate on case. When debating on- case, Opp should put offense on case. While I dislike the 1% solvency rule, most defensive  arguments are mitigation and feed into it. Practically speaking, offense increases Opp’s chances  of winning the round.  However, that is not to say that straight defensive arguments cannot win a round. If Opp wants to  pursue this strategy, they need to make it clear that there is a zero percent chance of Gov’s  advantage/solvency/plan working out. Otherwise they basically link Gov’s case for them.  KRITIKS: It’s your round. I have no issue with Ks, with one exception. Under no circumstances will I ever  vote for a Critical Aff/Resoultional K. Gov has to affirm the resolution, how it does so is up to  them. But running a K on their own res is abusive to Opp. Language Ks run by the MG are fine,  provided there is a clear link to it. To expand on this a bit, while I generally think K’s (like value/fact resolutions) are a shifty way  to avoid specific policy debate, I recognize their usefulness in-round.  Moreover, I am not going  to punish a team that runs K as a strategy, as long as they affirm the resolution (Gov) or oppose  the resolution. I don’t think it’s fair that a team that prepares for Kritik should lose just because I  am in the back of the room.  I do think it is fair that a Gov team running a Resolutional K (Critical Aff) should lose, because  Gov doesn’t get to switch sides because they don’t like to talk about the resolution or want to  talk about something completely different. To emphasize, Gov can run a K out of the PMC, but it  would have to be a performance K explaining the need for the resolution. Gov can run a  language/speed/rhetoric K in the MG, since they cannot anticipate how rounds will go down.  Opp can run any K it desires. To win with me on a K, you need a clear link scenario and an actual alternative. The less likely it  looks like I am seeing a “canned” K, the more likely I am to be persuaded by the K. If the  alternative is “reject plan,” that is a weak alternative. I do think K’s can be permed, but I am  willing to be persuaded on this point. If Opp can tell me why it’s K can’t be permed, Opp can  win. COUNTERPLANS: I have no issue with Conditional CPs. However, I can be persuaded on theories stating why  Conditional CPs are bad/abusive. CPs do not have to be nontopical. I do have an issue with the concept that Opp can only win if it runs a CP. That is not true with  me. Sure, a CP is a great tool to co-opt Gov’s case and win a round, but Opp can win on straight  DA/case turns/solvency presses. They do not need a CP and often times Opp teams running CP’s  yield presumption to Gov by not debating case. That hurts Opp in the round, because practically  speaking it gives Gov. an important tool to win the round. With perm, I am open to theory debate on what can and cannot be permed. My feeling is that any  CP that does not directly contradict plan can be permed. That’s because perms, in my opinion,  measure opportunity cost: by doing plan, we lose the ability to do CP. Therefore a CP with a  different actor doing the same thing will likely be successfully permed by Gov. That being said, I  am open to debate on CP perms. Perms are also not advocacy in my opinion: Gov doesn’t case  shift just because they run perm. However, any perm that causes Gov. to alter plan text is likely going to fail Gov on the perm  debate. Severance perms are difficult for me to justify. Intrinsic perms can be argued one way or  the other. For me, the test of whether an intrinsic perm can be sustained is whether that perm  fundamentally alters plan text. If it does, then it likely cannot be permed successfully.  TOPICALITY/PROCEDURALS GENERALLY: While articulated abuse will never hurt a T, I don’t require it. Words/resolutions have meaning,  Gov has to hew to that meaning. I will vote on Extra/Effects T, even without articulated abuse.  This is generally true of most procedural arguments: I can vote without articulated abuse because  I believe that vague plans or procedural violations mitigate the value of debate for debaters  outside of round. Debate is a game, but it is also an educational activity that should make us  better informed policymakers. POINTS OF ORDER/REBUTTALS: In order for me to spotlight a new argument, a debater must point of order it. I may have on my  flow that it is blatantly new, but it isn’t my round. You are the debater, you tell me why it is a  new argument. I have been persuaded on Point of Order argumentation before, so don’t give up  just because you think the complaining debater has a strong point. As for rebuttals generally, like most critics I want my rebuttals to showcase your side’s strongest  arguments in-round. Magnitude plays a small role for me. Any debater can throw “nuke war” out  there and add a 1% likelihood of it happening. However, I prefer likelihood of an impact  scenario over the most detrimental impacts. If I weigh people are going to lose a certain amount  of income over the aversion of nuclear war, I will probably go with loss of income (assuming  that team can prove it is likely.) I don’t have any preference for long-term vs. short-term impacts,  but a team arguing in the long term risks having their impacts blocked  by the other side’s short  term impacts. (E.g.: Team A argues this is cheaper in the long run but Team B argues that it is  more expensive in the short-term, thus causing economic recession that impacts long-term  productivity. Team B probably has an advantage.) With rebuttals, be clear and concise.

Philip Enguancho - Chabot

Rob Taylor - MJC

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I'm very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I'm also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you're being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent's voters. I personally hate spreading, so I'm very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it's still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why. Don't be mean and let's make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.

Somerset Bassett - SRJC

<blockquote> Somerset Bassett, Santa Rosa Junior College Judging Paradigm 2014 I think the resolution affects how I evaluate a round, if the resolution is broad I will listen to generic K’s or tic’s with less animosity than if you run them on a specific policy resolution where the oppositions ground is predictable. I tend to vote affirmative (around 60%) probably because I dislike K’s, Theory, and PICs. Sorry opp. The K- I will vote for the K and have run it both as affirmative and negative, however running the k in front of me tends to be an uphill battle. 1. I would like to judge the round without intervening and most K frameworks prevent this from happening.  If you ask me to vote for impacts that extend to real world then I feel I have an obligation to determine that your either not credible or I have to intervene as I wont endorse a real world movement that I’m opposed to simply cause the mg didn’t answer an argument, either way your odds of winning that round are slim as I will blame you for forcing me into that predicament and will listen openly to arguments of abuse or degradation to the activity. 2. In terms of literature I have a novice level of understanding on most commonly used philosophy however, please explain your argument, and don’t rely on an appeal to authority.  Thesis’s are helpful, go-slow here and explain your central argument early in the speech.  I would much rather you explain what your project is and defend it as opposed being sneaky and extending some muddled spew. 3. I feel that policy debate tends to be more grounded in reality (just barely) than the k debate and will look forward to debates on good topics.  I will not consciously punish you for running something else but understand that when I’m yawning through a generic FW debate I tend to give lower speaker points. CP- I prefer the disadvantage/advantage debate however I also enjoy a good counterplan plan debate. In terms of status I tend to side with conditional being ok, however dispositional without an explanation pisses me off, so be careful if that’s your strategy.  Blipped out preempts about severance should be answered in kind as I will do anything I can to not vote there. The permutation debate I prefer is that of net benefits i.e. Is perm better than CP. Multiple condo/perfcon strats/ 5 off + cp/ etc. – I will be very sympathetic to theory against these strats .(if you run the right interps!) because its probably not fair and more importantly I think it’s bad for debate. Positions either develop in block/PMR interaction or not at all.  I will give the PMR a lot of leeway in terms of new answers to a strategy that becomes intelligible in MO as it should have been in LO so if your going to run five off make sure you can develop them in LOC, especially those you plan to go for otherwise I will let the PMR be a constructive. PICs- I’m fine with PICs in general, I ran them, they make sense as an opposition strategy my one problem occurs when the aff has only 1 topical plan text ie. pass HR 356 in which case I am inclined to buy abuse claims. Speed- I don’t believe my preference is important, as you should debate your way as much as possible.  My capacity to flow fast debates is good, there are debaters who are too fast for me to flow well, but not many.  I generally think speed k/theory are a waste of time however if mishandled I will vote for them. Debate is a communication event and therefore if I didn’t flow an argument you made it is your fault J I’ll try to keep up. however ensuring you have clear taglines, allow pen time, and don’t jump all over the flow will be to your advantage. Theory-I ran theory very selectively almost always to protect against an abusive MG argument.  I hate whining and I hate exclusive technical theory.  I don’t think competing interpretations makes sense in parli and will generally prefer arguments saying I should vote on abuse in prep time or in round.  I don’t say this to discourage you from running theory as protecting your strategy is very important, if you think you might need it run it and kick it later. I wont punish you, but if you collapse to it you should have some real abuse present to convince me to vote here (also prove your lost ground matters).  I think there are situations where you can go for theory and a da/cp/case turns /whatever but if you do be careful of contradictions as any reason not to vote on theory is generally good enough for me. POOs – Please call POO’s if the PMR makes a new argument, LOR too I suppose but only if they are fundamentally changing the PMR strategy. Ie. Picking up a crucial drop out of the M.O.  Don’t call them excessively it’ll lower your speaker points, make me ignore your next POO’s nuance, and generally bother me as after 40 minutes of speeches I am generally sick of watching you argue. Impact Calc.- I prefer an impact calculus that favors probability to magnitude.  I generally don’t think a .00001 chance of nuclear war is a reason to not fix the economy right now.  Get ahead in terms of comparing impacts early in the debate I do think answering that death is worse than dehumanization in the PMR is new if the LOC said the opposite, so do your work early and it will benefit you. </blockquote>

Sue Peterson - Chico

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.  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.  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.  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.  Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart! 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. Arguments that probably won't go well for you in front of me:  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.

Taure Shimp - MJC

OVERVIEW Debate should foster civil discourse and honor the educational integrity of the event. I see it as my responsibility to listen to the arguments you choose to make and evaluate them as fairly as possible. However, I do have some personal preferences. The rounds I enjoy the most have a lot of clash, fewer but higher quality arguments, and clear impact analysis. GENERAL PREFERENCES In IPDA: The rate of speech should be conversational. I expect to hear well-structured arguments with clearly delineated sub-points. I also expect to hear source citations--you have thirty minutes of prep, so please indicate where your information came from and use it to your advantage. While I get that IPDA discourages the use of jargon, procedurals, and kritiks, I am open to hearing arguments about definitions as well as arguments that identify problematic assumptions/worldviews within the debate. However, these should be articulated in a way that remains accessible to an intelligent, informed lay audience.  In NFA-LD: Please set up a <a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a> room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate. Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along. If you are a paper-only debater or do not share a digital version of the evidence, you will need to go at a more conversational pace. Even if I am not able to see your evidence during the round, I do have the expectation that debaters will freely share their evidence with their competitor for the duration of the debate in compliance with the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules. </a>Specifically, the rules state: "Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate. If the evidence is only available in a digital format, the debater is required to make a digital version of the evidence available for the entirety of the debate at the opponent's discretion. For example, if an affirmative case is only available on a laptop, the negative should be allowed to keep the laptop for reference until the debate is over." In other words, it is in your best interest to have additional paper copies of your evidence and/or a viewing laptop that can be used by your opponent during the round. In Parli: Faster-than-conversation is fine, but I do not like spreading in this event. For me, it decreases the quality of analysis and becomes counterproductive to the in-round education. However, I will not ask you to slow down during the round or say “clear.” Procedurals and Kritiks can make for good debate… …but I find AFF Ks are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity. If you choose to run a Kritik (on either side), it is very important that you explain the theory clearly and accurately; have a strong link; and identify a realistic alternative. If you are unable to articulate—in a concrete way—how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole. Rebuttals are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters. I evaluate the round by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages. Etiquette: I enjoy rounds with good humor where everyone treats one another with respect. This does not mean you need to begin every speech with flowery thank yous, but it does mean you should avoid rude nonverbals (scoffing, making faces, etc.). Basic guideline...if you would not speak to family members, co-workers, teachers, and friends in a certain way then don't speak that way to competitors. MISCELLANEOUS FAQ Sit or stand during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what's comfortable for you. Partner communication is fine with me, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says. Try to avoid puppeting one another. Do NOT confer audibly with one another if the other team is giving one of their speeches.

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

Tina Lim - San Jose State

You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason.  My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position. As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.

Tony Bernacchi - DVC

Please run whatever you want! I judge based on what happened in the round, but I am not going to waste a bunch of my time defining what should be run in front of me.  So bring it! I was a policy debater for 4 years so I am going to be able to keep up with your 'speed'........HOWEVER, I dont really like that parli-debaters spread as if they are in policy debate.  If spreading is a core strategy of yours you should probably add evidence to your speech and join CEDA. Oh.......impact analysis/voting calculous is appreciated. Finally, be respectful of one anotherin the round. If you are overly rude, consistently interupting your partner, or try to influence my decision with obnoxious facial expressions and non-verbals......DON'T! a) it wont work, and b) it will reflect in your speaker points.(negatively) debate well

2014 Santa Rosa Junior College Speech and Debate Tournament