FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Santos - SJDC

Alexandra Underwood - Chico

Alicia Smith - SJDC

Anita Inagandla - San Jose State

Arnel Felizardo - Chabot

Ashley Johnson - SFSU

Avesta Sabetian - San Jose State

Banafshae Khan - SJDC

Blessing Morris - Chabot

Bradley Silva - DVC

Brendan Gormly - SJDC

Brian Locke - SFSU

Carol Masanini - Chabot

Chris Arreola - SFSU

Chris Pettinichio - Columbia

Cody Funk - Butte

n/a

Danielle Cummins - Columbia

Emily Frone - Chabot

Eric Thomas - SJDC

Erika Jauregui - SJDC

Franciska Karpovich - Chabot

Gagandeep Gill - San Jose State

Background: Debated in parli as an undergrad for three years .   I'm what you would call a "tabula rasa" judge: the world in the round is as the teams lay it out for me. If one team says the sky is green, and the other doesn't refute it, then despite knowing it's actually blue, I will consider it to be green when deciding the  winner. My job as a judge is solely to evaluate the arguments and refutations both sides to present me. I will not do your job when it comes to defending your arguments or destroying theirs. That being said, if the the other side does point out that the sky is blue, then I will side with them because my own knowledge backs this up.    Key things: -In your rebuttal, be clear about where you want me to focus my attention when weighing the round, otherwise it is up to me to decide which arguments I think deserve the most consideration. -Be respectful. I have a very low tolerance for debaters who shift from actually debating to personal attacks. Be ruthless in your strategy but keep that solely to the debate itself.  -I'm fine with speed, but I prefer a few good arguments over numerous arguments that have no real substance to them. I will be voting on what I hear so don't let a good argument fall to the wayside because you blazed over a crucial part.

Greg Kling - DVC

Hans Craycraft - CCC

My judging philosophy is simple and founded upon Aristotle’s axiom that there are only two parts to a speech-----you make a statement and then you prove it.  I want to know what the speakers believe and why they believe it. I expect the speakers to be clear, concise and eloquent. I look for claims to be supported by evidence and that evidence to be evaluated by its quality. This applies not only to the primary claim, but also to secondary claims. I do not look favorably upon claims made in passing, that I am expected to accept without adequately linked evidence.  I do not expect the speakers to be unbiased, but I do expect them to be reasonable, rational, credible and passionate. I place a lot of value on the quality of evidence, structure and the reasonableness of the inference drawn from that evidence. I look for teams to provide quality analysis, reasoning, organization, and delivery. I prefer that teams carefully and clearly label the various elements of their case.  I also look for strong refutation on opposing points. I will normally give the win to the team that most skillfully blends these various elements into a coherent whole and thereby displays power, consistency and reasonability in their advocacy.

Hayley Callaway - CCC

Heather Warren - SFSU

Ibrahim Eldajani - DVC

Jakarra Taylor - San Jose State

Janine White - Butte

n/a

Jordan Brown - CCSF

Joseph Kimple - SRJC

Josh Desalles - Columbia

Julia Breckel - Yuba

n/a

Jyoti Swamy - Ohlone College

n/a

Katelin Zweifel-Korzuchin - San Jose State

Koji Takahashi - PDB

Kurt Wagner - CCSF

Laura Teagarden - DVC

Leah Daoud - Chabot

n/a

Matthew Zupko - San Jose State

I’ll flow anything you tell me, just be organized and let me know where you are. You need to tell me why your impact is good (or bad)- I’m going to try not to assume anything. I really appreciate solid link scenarios, and evidence with good warrants can win you the round. Speed is fine, but please be respectful if the other team calls slow or clear. I like to hear about the topic, but if you run procedurals and provide good warrants I’ll vote on it. I prefer proven abuse but it’s not necessary to win the position. Weigh out and evaluate impacts, because if you don’t I have to do it myself and you probably don’t want that. Timeframe, probability and magnitude are what I’m accustomed to hearing and I will usually put the most weight into probability unless you can show me why I shouldn’t.

Michael Endick - PDB

I only vote on Heg Good and T. If the round becomes Heg Good vs. T, I will vote on haircuts. What do you want from me? Exclude your opponents and I will exclude you from the circle I make on the ballot. Go too fast and watch my face as it gets gradually more upset. I will not yell "clear". You'll just sound awful and I'll miss half your arguments. Partner communication is fine as long as it is whispered or done through notes. Critical arguments are good but not magical. "We won this round because..." is my favorite fragment to hear in rebuttals. Gentle reminder that fewer, better developed positions are better than a swarm of unfinished and/or unconvincing ones. I keep my RFDs short. Find me after I've turned my ballot in and I'll talk to you more.

Mike Epley - CCSF

I think debate is an educational rhetoric game. I try not to intervene if the debate meets two principles: 1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to different interpretations of the rules, but less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” If you volunteer to compete in an activity for a prize (the ballot), you’re committing to follow the rules as the first qualification to receive the prize. As far as I can tell, that’s the only way to keep a competitive activity fair. I’m unlikely to bend on my commitment to rule adherence as I see it as a gateway to competitive equity. 2. By default, I am inclined to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity and access in forensics. If you’re unclear on these points, please ask before the round begins. * These are not personal rules, but rather strongly-held biases. In the absence of an argument made in-round, and unless I think a violation is egregious, I am reluctant to intervene. My preferences: I like it when debaters are considerate. I don't like speed in debate. Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. Speaker points: I like hearing arguments about speaker points rather than making up my own criteria. Rebuttals:  I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new. Where applicable, please make it easy for me by calling Points of Order when you think an argument is new. My limitations: I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I did about 5 years of Parli, so if you’ve been doing policy since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. If I look confused, I probably am. Linguistically, I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Buyer beware: I don't flow speed well.

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.

Philip Enguancho - Ohlone College

n/a

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Robin Ponder - SFSU

Roque Portillo - SJDC

Rosemary Endick - DVC

Ryan Gallagher - San Jose State

Ryan Wallace - Santa Clara

Sam Azevedo - Butte

n/a

Sarah Dorman - Ohlone College

n/a

Scott Laczko - Chico

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'll be Updated 10/29/13  I'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'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points. 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 the reason you read the philo-   Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  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'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.  stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge.  If that is unclear i'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. K's-  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? T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized. case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days.  theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

2014 NCFA Spring Fling Tournament