Judge Philosophies

Adam Austin - Sac State

<p>Adam is in his first year of graduate school and still new to debate. He has been working hard on this process, attending lots of tournaments and observing, but still has limited experience judging. He flows fairly well, but you should still take it pretty slow and be sure to explain your arguments in depth, particularly impact comparisons.</p>

Adreanna Tirone - SFSU


Angela Yang - S@B


Daniel Lopez - Chabot

Erika Anderson - Chico

Hal Sanford - SRJC

<p><strong>Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College</strong></p> <p><strong>Short Version:&nbsp; </strong>I&#39;m a stock issues judge.&nbsp; I&#39;m not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.&nbsp; Thank you Joe Allen.&nbsp; Be nice to each other.&nbsp;&nbsp; I&#39;ll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion <strong>Long Version:&nbsp; </strong>Some debaters may want more.&nbsp; Here&#39;s more.&nbsp; Remember, being electronic, it&#39;s length&nbsp; does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <strong>What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? </strong>I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AFFIRMATIVE:&nbsp; Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the &quot;best.&quot;&nbsp; Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative.</p> <p>In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).&nbsp;</p> <p>In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.</p> <p>NEGATIVE:&nbsp; In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.&nbsp; Too often negatives think they are being clever with &quot;time suck&quot; topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.&nbsp; Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.&nbsp; Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.</p> <p>In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative&#39;s when in relation to the actual resolution.&nbsp; Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?&nbsp; </strong>Be nice.&nbsp; Don&#39;t belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.&nbsp; Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.&nbsp; Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?&nbsp; Really?</p> <p><strong>What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?&nbsp; </strong>Stock Issues:</p> <p>In policy debate, these are key for me.&nbsp; Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.&nbsp; Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.&nbsp; Affirmative must win all four to win round.&nbsp; Stock issues are:</p> <p>1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.&nbsp;</p> <p>Topicality:&nbsp; Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren&#39;t argued by negatives.&nbsp; You&#39;ve got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I&#39;ll really resist.&nbsp;</p> <p>Counter plans:&nbsp; It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I&#39;ll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.&nbsp; They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.&nbsp; Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad.</p> <p>Critiques:&nbsp; Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.&nbsp; I dislike generic critiques that don&#39;t relate to the resolution, the opponent&#39;s arguments, or reality.&nbsp; Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that&nbsp; &quot;we should all hurry up and die because life&#39;s greatest gift is death.&quot;&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; I vote on the flow, but I won&#39;t turn off my brain.&nbsp;&nbsp; Still, if your names are Robert or&nbsp; Sterling, I might buy it.&nbsp; They&#39;re eloquentus-maximus.&nbsp;</p> <p>Weighing:&nbsp; Explain why you win.&nbsp; Weigh impacts.&nbsp; Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.</p> <p><strong>How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?&nbsp; </strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>SPEED - NFA-LD:&nbsp; This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.&nbsp; Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.&nbsp; That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.&nbsp; Only one has been &quot;too fast&quot; for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.&nbsp; After all, &quot;speed is antithetical to the event&quot;, right?&nbsp;&nbsp; If I or the opponent call &quot;clear,&quot; heed that request.</p> <p>SPEED - PARLI:&nbsp; Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.&nbsp; I&#39;ll stop you if you&#39;re going too fast and I&#39;ll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.</p> <p>JARGON:&nbsp; Don&#39;t just sling jargon around and assume I&#39;ll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.&nbsp; For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say &quot;perm&quot; and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.&nbsp; Say something like:&nbsp; &quot;Perm.&nbsp; Do both the plan and the counter plan.&nbsp; If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.&nbsp; Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together.&quot;</p> <p>TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:&nbsp; Please be organized.&nbsp; I won&#39;t time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.&nbsp; I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.&nbsp; I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.&nbsp; If you really need to sit while speaking, I&#39;m fine with that.</p>

Hilary Clair - Chico

James Gooler-Rogers - SRJC

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 Ames - Chabot

<p>I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I&rsquo;m supposed to judge on.&nbsp; I believe the round is yours to define and I&rsquo;ll vote on any argument (T&rsquo;s, K&rsquo;s, CP&rsquo;s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.&nbsp; If you blip it, I won&rsquo;t buy it just because it&rsquo;s on the flow.&nbsp; Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better.</p> <p>Other things:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>I&rsquo;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&rsquo;t want to be a &ldquo;flow machine&rdquo;. 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&rsquo;ll be all good. If you&rsquo;re going too fast for me, I&rsquo;ll clear you and if you do that we&rsquo;ll all be happy at the end of the round.</p> <p>In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don&rsquo;t believe you need to be &ldquo;conversational speed&rdquo; either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we&rsquo;ll be all good. If you&rsquo;re going too fast for me, I&rsquo;ll clear you and if you do that we&rsquo;ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don&rsquo;t, you&rsquo;ll probably be unhappy.</p> <p>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&rsquo;t mean it&rsquo;s a lock for you if they don&rsquo;t &hellip; but the odds are ever in your favor).</p> <p>Here is the website for you to post your case:</p> <p><a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a></p> <p>Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.&nbsp; Enjoy!</p>

Jim Dobson - LPC


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

Kyle Johnson - San Jose State

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>

Precious Bowes - SFSU


Robert Hawkins - DVC


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>

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>

Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte


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>

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