FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Amy Taketomo - Hartnell

n/a

Ana Petero - Solano

1.   I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED, so DON'T DO IT IN FRONT OF ME! If you don't speed when you're having a conversation or in your platform speeches or in your limited prep events, then don't do it in debate. Debaters often talk about being excluded in a debate round; don't exclude your critics. 2.  Do not speak when it is not your turn to speak. Each of you has your own special time to speak, so don't interrupt your partner. It's rude to interrupt people when they're speaking...yes, even in debate, unless you're asking them a point of information. 3.  Have fun; be clear, and above all, be structured...

Ann Wright - Hartnell

n/a

April King - Hartnell

n/a

Brian Nelson - Solano

Please be structure, debate the resolution, and be polite. There is no need for speed. And please don't speak over your partner (feel free to pass notes).

Carol Kimbrough - Hartnell

n/a

Cheryl O'Donnell - Hartnell

n/a

Chris Moss - Hartnell

n/a

Chris Zepeda - Hartnell

n/a

Dan Petersen - Hartnell

n/a

Daniel Perez - Hartnell

n/a

Darren Phalen - Solano

Be courteous and structured. Make sound arguments, and tell me why you have won the debate. Please debate the resolution, and do not spread. There is no need for speed.

Deborah Stephens - Hartnell

n/a

Deborah Sturt - Hartnell

n/a

Francisco Corchado - Hartnell

n/a

Gabriel King - Hartnell

n/a

Hilary Clair - Chico

Isabel Ferraris - Hartnell

n/a

James Beck - Hartnell

n/a

Janet Flores - Hartnell

n/a

Jared Anderson - Sac State

NFA-LD judging philosophy I have been coaching and judging debate for about 10 years now. I'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... NFA-LD rules - I have read and understand the rules and I will "enforce" 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 to resolve any violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. 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.  Topicality - is a voter.  Kritiks - must link to the action of the plan. Winning "doesn't link to the plan" will function the same as "no link" for me. Basic Logistics: Prep - The prep clock stops when you stop prepping! When the clock stops, everyone needs to stop prepping. Don'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.  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. 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'm happy to answer additional questions at a later time.

Jason Blackford - Hartnell

n/a

Jayar Walker - Hartnell

n/a

Jim Dobson - LPC

n/a

Kyle Stubbs - Chico

A good debate is one that makes sense.  Like listening to a good story, I enjoy judging debates where the debaters are clear and expansive with their arguments, and present their case in a coherent, convincing narrative.  From my experience, that narrative often becomes disjointed with links, internal links, and impacts.  Not everything leads to nuclear war and mass extinction.  Essentially, it needs to be clear to me how we get to the impacts.  In other words, tell me a convincing story with a plausible ending.  I have no problem with running T or K, but in my experience K arguments typically backfire more often than not. Basically, I do not automatically vote against certain types of arguments; I will always judge based on how well you articulate and support your arguments within the round.  Since debate is an educational activity, I expect debaters to be civil with one another. It is disheartening to witness incivility, especially during cross examination and points of order.  I am okay with speed, but do think that when used as a weapon it defeats much of the purpose of a debate.

Lana McDonnell - Hartnell

n/a

Laura Fatuzzo - Hartnell

n/a

Lindsey Bertomen - Hartnell

n/a

Lori Kildal - Hartnell

n/a

Mark Shilstone - Hartnell

n/a

Marnie Glazier - Hartnell

n/a

Mercedes Quintero - Hartnell

n/a

Michael Endick - S@B

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.

Nancy Trout - Hartnell

n/a

Nancy Schur Beymer - Hartnell

n/a

Nate Dunn - Sac State

Nick Pasquale - Hartnell

n/a

Oona Hatton - San Jose State

I give my vote to the argument made with greater clarity and concision. Evidence should be relevant and persuasive but not redundant.    When a match is close, I favor the following:   - Innovation. I always appreciate original and creative thought, provided it is within the realm of practicability. - Teamwork. I enjoy seeing a debate team whose members collaborate well, and who contribute equally to the team's success. - Depth of knowledge. As debaters, it is your job to be conversant with current issues and events. Your engagement with the topic should demonstrate your grasp of its greater implications in a national or global context.

Patrick Moe - DVC

You should argue whatever you want, but never assume I know why you are arguing it until you tell me why.  Continuously answer the question: "So what?!"   The longer I do this the less impressed I am by debate jargon.  After competing in and coaching both high school and college forensics (including 7 years as the Director of Forensics at DVC), I speak debate fluently, but I very much prefer English.  Telling me, "Jargon, jargon, jagon therefore I win" rarely actually wins my ballot.  Instead what wins my ballot is an understanding of debate with examples, precedent, narrative, delivery, and a sense of humor. I fully understand and appreciate line by line refutation, but in rebuttals I very much prefer story-telling and persuasion over technocratic debate.  Also in rebuttals when it comes to impact calculus I am much more likely to be swayed by probabilty over magnitude than I am magnitude over probability.  Angry and yelling debate almost never wins my ballot.   I dislike speed--I'd prefer if you talked to me like a human being rather than like a flowing robot. Most important, have fun and learn.  If you are not having fun and learning, stop giving up your weekends to do this.

Peter Calvert - Hartnell

n/a

Rebecca Fields - Hartnell

n/a

Renata Funke - Hartnell

n/a

Robert Hawkins - DVC

n/a

Robert Maffei - Hartnell

n/a

Roz Little - Hartnell

n/a

Salim Razawi - LPC

n/a

Sara Parker - Hartnell

n/a

Shannan Troxel - Chico

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.

Sunita Lanka - Hartnell

n/a

Susan Pheasant - Hartnell

n/a

Susanne Burns - Hartnell

n/a

Terri Pyer - Hartnell

n/a

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

Tina Esparza - Hartnell

n/a

Tony Anderson - Hartnell

n/a

Violeta Wenger - Hartnell

n/a

Wes Morland - Hartnell

n/a

Zack Lampitok - Sac State

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>My Name is Zack Lampitok, I did both parli(4 YEARS) and policy(1 YEAR) in college. My function as a judge in a debate round is to render a decision based on what I am told to do by the participants in the round. I flow and go in the direction I am told. I have no qualms with any argument or style of debating. If you argue it, win it and tell me how it wins you the round, Ill vote for you. I do tend to enjoy creative argumentation but just because its creative doesn’t mean it’s a round winner. Critical arguments are as any other argument in a round, if explained how they function in the round and how they work in relation to the rest of the round, they are in play. If neg positions contradict the Aff must explain why that matters, why I should care and how that somehow delinks them or means it’s an aff win.    There does not need to be abuse to win a round on T, if there is a standard explained that provides the grounds for me to vote on T, I will. Competing interpretations can help but are not always required. Run any counterplan you like. Knowing the status does help. Be competitive in any way you see fit and can defend.    I try to avoid weighing arguments not weighed for me, so if they are directly opposing and not clarified by either side, they wash. Impacts are interesting, when competing, there absolutely has to be explanation of why to prefer and that explanation needs warrants for both sides. Death or dehum. I only care as far as I am told to care. </td> </tr> </tbody> </table>

Zahi Atallah - Hartnell

n/a

2015 Steinbeck Invitational IE/LD