Judge Philosophies

Adreanna Tirone - SFSU


Andrea Adams - Ohlone

<p>The short version: It&rsquo;s your time; you do what you want.</p> <p>I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count.</p> <p>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)&nbsp; As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.&nbsp; I&rsquo;m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.)</p> <p>On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line)</p> <p>Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won&rsquo;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&nbsp;perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page.</p> <p>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&rsquo;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 &lsquo;being present&rsquo; approach unless told otherwise by either team.</p> <p>Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I&rsquo;ll vote on anything. See first line.<br /> <br /> Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round.</p> <p>Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don&rsquo;t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn&rsquo;t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech).</p> <p>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&rsquo;s unlikely to impress me.</p> <p>I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).</p>

Ben Warheit - SJDC


Caitlin Taffe - Sac State

Daniel Lopez - Chabot

Douglas Mungin - Solano CC

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

James Rogers - SRJC

Janene Whitesell - Solano CC

I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.

Jared Anderson - Sac State

<p>NFA-LD judging philosophy</p> <p>I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I&#39;ve primarily coached CEDA/NDT debate but I am also very familiar with Parli. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I will try to keep this brief and answer any questions you may have...</p> <p>NFA-LD rules - I have read and&nbsp;understand the&nbsp;rules and I will &quot;enforce&quot; them if arguments are made. I will not intervene, you need to argue the violation. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules&nbsp;to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won&#39;t make sense, so I&#39;ll end up voting on it.</p> <p>Speed - I understand that this is one of the rules. It is also a rule that makes very little sense, is written poorly, and difficult to interpret. I take a good flow and I suspect that there are very few folks in LD that can test my pen. That being said, I am not encouraging any one to try to spread people out. That should never be the goal of debate. If there is a legitimate concern raised about the rate of delivery from somebody, I will consider the argument, but it needs to be well developed and explained.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality - is a voter.&nbsp;</p> <p>Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning &quot;doesn&#39;t link to the plan&quot; will function the same as &quot;no link&quot; for me.</p> <p>Basic Logistics:</p> <p>Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don&#39;t tell me you are ready and then look for more cards or that you have to find your flow. Prep is done when you are ready to speak. If you are paperless, I will stop prep when the flash drive is in the other teams hand or the email is sent.&nbsp;</p> <p>Evidence Sharing - be adults about this. If you want a paperless debate, awesome. I think it works the best, however...get your tech together. If both debaters are prepared for paperless that is great, if you are providing a viewing computer it better be of a quality that allows your opponent to actually view the evidence without wasting their prep time. If the debate is on paper, pass down cards as you read them and avoid bickering about who has access to the evidence. The person who is prepping should be in control of the evidence.</p> <p>Disclosure - unless specifically forbidden, I will disclose my decision after the debate and give you brief feedback. Since we need to keep the tournament on time I will keep my comments brief. I&#39;m happy to answer additional questions at a later time.</p>

Jason Hough - Hartnell


Jim Dobson - LPC


Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Kevin Steeper - SRJC

<p>Kevin Steeper, Santa Rosa Junior College</p> <p><strong>Most Important Criteria</strong></p> <p>I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m also far more likely to vote on probability over magnitude (so, for example, you&#39;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).</p> <p><strong>Predispositions</strong></p> <p>The only thing I&#39;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&#39;ve been working on all year. If you run it really well, or the opponent totally mishandled it, I&#39;ll still vote on it even though I won&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s case to prove abuse is a waste of my time and yours, and I&#39;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&#39;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.</p> <p><strong>Speed/Jargon/Technical</strong></p> <p>I debated Parli for four years, so I have no trouble with jargon or debate terms. I&#39;m not a fan of speed as a weapon and I like to see good clash, so my feeling on speed is don&#39;t speed the other team out of the room. If they call &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot;, 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.</p> <p><strong>NOTE:</strong>&nbsp;I do not protect on the flow in rebuttals. It&#39;s your debate, it&#39;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&#39;t a new argument, so I want one side to call and the other side to get their say.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC NOTES:</strong> 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.</p>

Kyle Stubbs - MJC

Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU

Mark Nelson - SRJC

Natalie Kellner - Ohlone

Nathan Steele - CCSF

<p>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.</p> <p>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&#39;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&nbsp;I hope you will continue to listen to each other.</p> <p>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don&#39;t lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what&nbsp;the affirmative or negative team must do to&nbsp;win my ballot.&nbsp;I&#39;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&nbsp;kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches.</p> <p>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.</p>

Nicole Sandoval - SJDC

Orion Steele - USF

<p>Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. I am currently a coach for the University of San Francisco.<br /> <br /> General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a &ldquo;because&rdquo; statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.<br /> <br /> I&rsquo;m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:<br /> <br /> Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I&rsquo;m doing if you can show in round abuse.<br /> <br /> Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.<br /> <br /> Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.<br /> <br /> Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.<br /> <br /> Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.<br /> <br /> Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.<br /> <br /> Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won&rsquo;t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.<br /> <br /> Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.<br /> <br /> FINAL NOTE<br /> I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say &ldquo;do not pref me if you make x argument&rdquo; or &ldquo;I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else&rdquo;. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.</p>

Robert Hawkins - DVC


Ryan Wallace - CSUEB


Ryan Guy - MJC

<p><strong>UPDATED: 3/8/2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Guy, Ryan</strong></p> <p>Modesto Junior College</p> <p><strong>Video Recording:</strong>&nbsp;I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you<strong>&nbsp;ask me</strong>. I&#39;ll only do it if both teams want it, and default to uploading files as unlisted YOU TUBE links and only sharing them with you on my Tabroom ballot. This way no one ever has to bug me about getting video files.</p> <p>Me:</p> <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for at Humboldt State.</li> <li>Coached Parli, NFA-LD, and a little bit of BP and CEDA since 2008.</li> <li>I teach argumentation, debate, public speaking, and a variety of other COMM studies courses</li> </ul> <p><strong>The Basics:</strong></p> <ul> <li>Debate is a game.</li> <li>Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)</a></li> <li>Use&nbsp;<a href="http://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;to share files in LD and Policy</li> <li>I&rsquo;m fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.</li> <li>Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse</li> <li>I prefer policy but I am okay with the K. That said, run it well or I might be grumpy.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul> <p><strong>General Approach to Judging:</strong></p> <p>I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other&#39;s arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on. If at the end of the round I&#39;m looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed.</p> <p>Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around&mdash;if necessary&mdash;but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.</p> <p>I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it.</p> <p>If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won&#39;t. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I&#39;m always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.</p> <p><strong>NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:</strong></p> <p><strong>Files:</strong>&nbsp;I would like debaters to use&nbsp;<a href="http://www.speechdrop.net/">www.speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;for file exchange. It is faster and eats up less prep. If for some reason that is not possible, I would like to be on the email chain: ryanguy@gmail.com. If there is not an email chain I would like the speech docs on a flashdrive before the speech. I tend to feel paper only debate hurts education and fairness in the round. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you. If you can&#39;t provide this digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.</p> <p><strong>Disclosure:</strong>&nbsp;I&#39;m a fan of the case list I think it makes for good debate. If you are not breaking a brand new aff it better be up there. If it is not I am more likely to vote on &quot;accessibility&quot; and &quot;predictably&quot; standards in T. Here is the case list as of 2018. Get your stuff on it:&nbsp;<a href="https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/">https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/</a>&nbsp;If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec argument on them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.</p> <p><strong>LD with no cards:</strong>&nbsp;It might not be a rule, but I think it is abusive and bad for LD debate. I might even vote on theory that articulates that.</p> <p><strong>Specifics:</strong></p> <p><strong>Speaker Points</strong>: Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 26-30 range. If you do the things in my &ldquo;General Approach to Judging&rdquo; section, your speaks will be higher.</p> <p><strong>Topicality</strong>: Hey Aff&hellip;be topical. T and other proceedural debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I&rsquo;m cool with the &ldquo;test of the aff&rdquo; approach but please be smart. I&rsquo;ll vote on T, just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don&#39;t answer it well. I&rsquo;m unlikely to vote on an RVI. In general I enjoy a good procedural debate but also love rounds were we get to talk about the issues. That said if you are going for a procedural argument...you should probably really go for it in the end or move on to your other arguments.</p> <p><strong>Kritiques</strong>: I tend to be more of a fan of policy rounds. That said I do enjoy critical theory and will vote on the K. Please keep in mind that I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has. Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument. Educate us as you debate. Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of K.</p> <p>I&rsquo;m not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards trend in parli. If you don&rsquo;t understand a critical / philosophical standpoint enough to explain it in your own words, then you might not want to run it in front of me.</p> <p><strong>Weighing</strong>: Please tell me why you are winning. Point to the impact level of the debate. Tell me where to look on my flow. I like overviews and clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I&rsquo;m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calc and show me why you won.</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong>&nbsp;I think going a little bit faster than normal conversation can be good for debate. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you can&rsquo;t do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear&hellip;please do so. If someone asks you to slow down please do so. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I&#39;m pretty good if I&#39;m on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.&nbsp;<strong>Side Note</strong>&nbsp;on NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is &ldquo;antithetical&rdquo; to nfa-ld debate line in the bylaws. I also know that almost everyone ignores it. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule. If speed becomes a problem in the round just call &ldquo;clear&rdquo; or &quot;slow.&quot; That said if you use &quot;clear&quot; or &quot;slow&quot; to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I&#39;ll also listen and vote on theory in regards to speed, but I will NEVER stop a round for speed reasons in any form of debate. If you think the other team should lose for going fast you will have to make that argument.</p> <p><strong>Safety:&nbsp;</strong>I believe that debate is an important educational activity. I think it teaches folks to speak truth to power and trains folks to be good citizens and advocates of change. As a judge I never want to be a limiting factor on your speech. That said the classroom and state / federal laws put some requirements on us in terms of making sure that the classroom space is safe. If I ever feel the physical well-being of the people in the round are being threatened, I am inclined to stop the round and bring it to the tournament director.</p> <p><strong>IPDA:</strong></p> <p>I&rsquo;m a NPDA and NFA-LD judge for the most part. Even in IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow the typical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc. You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with cited evidence and empirics are more likely to get my ballot. In general I am okay with anything in IPDA that I am okay with in LD and NPDA. Meaning I will vote on procedurals, Kritiques, and other debate theory if it is run well. I&rsquo;m also generally okay with a little speed under the guidelines I provided above. In general I follow arguments on my flow. Make sure to respond to each other because a debate without clash is boring.</p>

Sasan Kasravi - DVC

<p>I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I&#39;m very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I&#39;m also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you&#39;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&#39;s voters. I personally hate spreading, so I&#39;m very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it&#39;s still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why.</p> <p>Don&#39;t be mean and let&#39;s make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.</p>

Scott Laczko - Chico

<p>Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i&#39;ll be</p> <p>Updated 10/29/13</p> <p>&nbsp;I&#39;m still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i&#39;m also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points.</p> <p>To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico</p> <p>the reason you read the philo- &nbsp;</p> <p>Framework and non topical aff&#39;s - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community &nbsp;bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it&#39;s own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me.&nbsp;</p> <p>stolen from Sue&#39;s philo:&nbsp;if you are going to &quot;use the topic as a starting point&quot; on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I&#39;m probably not going to be your favorite judge.&nbsp;</p> <p>If that is unclear i&#39;ll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together.</p> <p>K&#39;s- &nbsp;holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do?</p> <p>T&#39;s - go for it i&#39;m down. i default to competing interpretation and don&#39;t like to vote on potential abuse</p> <p>C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA&#39;s. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized.</p> <p>case: 2a&#39;s hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.&nbsp;</p> <p>theory: should always be where it applies. however i&#39;m pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team</p>

Sheelah Bearfoot - S@B


Stephanie Eisenberg Todd - Chabot

<p>I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in policy debate, but I have also judged/coached some parli and NFA-LD as well. I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for people who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over people who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them. I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply &quot;reject the team&quot; and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it&#39;s an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative with real world, coherent impacts. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate. I&#39;d say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I&rsquo;m very sympathetic to &ldquo;reject the arg, not the team.&rdquo; &nbsp;I am always going to protect teams from new arguments in rebuttals, so you probably don&#39;t need to call a billion points of order to let me know what&#39;s up. &nbsp;I don&#39;t mind partner cross-talk so long as it&#39;s minimal, however I&#39;m not going to flow anything your partner tells you unless you&#39;ve set up a framework for sharing speeches...aka, if your partner wants to help you with an argument, you need to say it for it to end up on my flow. &nbsp;I am not cool with one partner dominating another partner&#39;s speech time, cross ex, etc.&nbsp; I&nbsp;believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither side is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the side who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective. I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the &quot;style&quot;. I look forward to watching you do your thang!</p>

Sue Peterson - Chico

<p>I primarily participated in CEDA/NDT debate as a competitor and coach for the last 20 years.&nbsp; We made the move to NFA-LD four years ago and I haven&rsquo;t looked back.&nbsp; I consider myself to be open to most decision-making criteria, but I default to an offense/defense, cost-benefit calculus minus further instructions.&nbsp;</p> <p>I do not enjoy adjudicating performance debate.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;</p> <p>I like when the debaters clearly identify the key voting issues from their perspective and do impact analysis in those areas.&nbsp; Simply said, I like for the rebuttals to &ldquo;write my ballot&rdquo; for me.&nbsp;</p> <p>The best rounds are those with good evidence AND good analysis.&nbsp; The worst rounds are those with neither of those things.&nbsp; I love a good topicality debate that gets to the heart of predictable, educational and fair ground on the topic.&nbsp; I also like good counterplan/disad debates that clearly identify the competitive points and focus the debate on that competition.&nbsp; I am okay with theory debates, but I think they need to have a real purpose in the round (read &ndash; I don&rsquo;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 &ldquo;It&rsquo;s abusive&rdquo;.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So, if you run one, be sure to consider that and try to develop it as an argument, not just repeat taglines.&nbsp;</p> <p>Overall, be nice to one another, have fun, but most important, be smart!</p> <p>Because NFA-LD has an actual &ldquo;rule&rdquo; relating to speed of delivery, we should at least give that rule a &ldquo;nod&rdquo; in rounds.&nbsp; So, just because I am fine with you talking fast in a debate, if your opponent or other judges on a panel feel&nbsp;that speed is a hindrance to their performance and states that out loud before the round, we should honor it.&nbsp; My least favorite thing is listening to speed critiques or requests for others to slow down from someone who is talking relatively quickly &ndash; don&rsquo;t be hypocritical.&nbsp; I also think that clarity is a key component in these discussions.&nbsp; Some people can talk fast and be totally understandable.&nbsp; Others, not so much.</p> <p><strong>Arguments that probably won&#39;t go well for you in front of me: &nbsp;</strong>Performance, debate bad arguments and reverse voting issues on topicality. &nbsp;Underdeveloped theory arguments. &nbsp;Critiques that are contradicted by other arguments you are making in the round without some justification for that contradiction. &nbsp;</p>

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba


Taure Shimp - MJC

<p><strong>OVERVIEW</strong></p> <p>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.</p> <p><strong>GENERAL PREFERENCES</strong></p> <p><strong>In IPDA:&nbsp;</strong>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.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In NFA-LD:</strong>&nbsp;Please set up a&nbsp;<a href="https://speechdrop.net/">speechdrop.net</a>&nbsp;room for evidence and share the code. I like to see evidence during the debate.&nbsp;Speed is fine as long as your tags are slow and clear and I am able to read along.&nbsp;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&nbsp;<em>I</em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<a href="https://sites.google.com/site/nationalforensicsassociation//about-nfa/governing-documents">NFA-LD rules.&nbsp;</a>Specifically, the rules state: &quot;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&#39;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.&quot; 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.</p> <p><strong>In Parli:</strong>&nbsp;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 &ldquo;clear.&rdquo;</p> <p><strong>Procedurals and Kritiks</strong>&nbsp;can make for good debate&hellip;</p> <p>&hellip;but I find&nbsp;<strong>AFF Ks</strong>&nbsp;are often gratuitous and I tend to dislike when they are run as a strategy to win rather than out of ethical necessity.</p> <p><strong>If you choose to run a Kritik</strong>&nbsp;(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&mdash;in a concrete way&mdash;how we can engage the alternative, I am unlikely to be persuaded by the argument as a whole.</p> <p><strong>Rebuttals&nbsp;</strong>are most effective when the debaters provide a big-picture overview and a clear list of voters.</p> <p>I&nbsp;<strong>evaluate the round</strong>&nbsp;by looking at Topicality and Specs, CPs and K Alts, then Advantages and Disadvantages.</p> <p><strong>Etiquette:&nbsp;</strong>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&#39;t speak that way to competitors.</p> <p><strong>MISCELLANEOUS FAQ</strong></p> <p><strong>Sit or stand</strong>&nbsp;during your speech; I do not have a preference, so do what&#39;s comfortable for you.</p> <p><strong>Partner communication&nbsp;</strong>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.</p>

Tim Heisler - LPC


Tina Lim - San Jose State

<p>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.&nbsp;</p> <p>My preference is for you to tell me what&#39;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.</p> <p>As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it&#39;s clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it&#39;s important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.</p>

Viet Le - CCSF

<p>About Debate in general: - To do debate is a great PRIVILEGE. Many countries don&rsquo;t have access to debate activities and the ability to express opinions. Debate is simply incredible, like a sweet dream come true for many people. Treasure the activity and be respect to everyone. - Debate should be a POSITIVE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE for everyone. - Learning a new thing from debate is not necessarily good. Demonstrating knowledge of debate structure, logical reasoning, facts, emotional appeal, critical thinking and theories are the gold standard. - No bullying, silencing human expression, and treating people as nothing more than mindless/obedient slaves. I cannot turn a blind eye to these harmful practices in a debate round. - Explain your argument as if you are talking to a smart middle school student who knows nothing about the topic. - I will not use my knowledge or personal bias to influence my judgment. Don&#39;t be afraid if you think your argument is radical. No matter how extreme your argument is, as long as your explanation is reasonable and clear, it&#39;s okay. - Explanation, explanation, and explanation are highly important. How you win: - Clash: the opponent make an argument against you, you respond and turn his/her argument against them - Impact calculation: - Magnitude: How big is the impact? - Probability: What are the chances? How likely is the impact? - Time frame: When does the impact happen? Immediately? A week? A Year? 100 years? - Use terminology to label and structure your arguments, such as uniqueness, link, impact, etc. - Be confident in your understanding of the resolution. Your understanding is central to you being able to deploy your - Don&rsquo;t be greedy. A good and well-explained Advantage/Disadvantage (for Aff/Neg) is much more educational and persuasive than 2 or more poorly written ones. It helps your teammates and opponents understand and engage with your arguments. Don&rsquo;t run poorly explained arguments. - Finally, DON&#39;T FORGET TO SMILE AND ENJOY YOURSELVES!!!</p>