Judge Philosophies
Andrea Brown - Ohlone College
This philosophy is for NRR 2020. I will go back to my other philosophy for other tournaments. Unless something goes really wrong (check out the speed section and the will vote you down for section), I will keep all speaker points in the 28-30 range and norm it at 29.
What sucks:
Iâll vote on whatever but I think thereâs a lot of sucky Ks out there. I tired of any cap K that thinks raising/changing consciousness is enough. Iâm not here for Lacan or Lacan derived arguments (looking at you Edelman and Wilderson) unless your alt/advocacy pulls from outside that lit. Also, I think Hegal is terrible. If your ableism K doesnât address race, itâs not very good. If you run nihilism or pessimism in front of me, I might vote for you but Iâm going to hate it. Same with wipe-out.
Whatâs cool:
People or theory that Iâm a little familiar with and like: Eve Tuck, Tiffany Lethero King, Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze (although Iâm finding Jodi Byrdâs argument persuasive, so maybe not focus on the rhizomatic/lines of flights parts but thatâs still a lot of cool Deleuze left.) Christina Sharpe, some of Sylvia Winters, some community-written disability theory (spoon theory is a good example of this). Thereâs more but thatâs probably enough for you to get sense of the direction I go in. Note: just because I say I know and like them doesnât mean I know your relationship to the above folks so donât take shortcuts and assume Iâll understand or follow.
Thereâs a lot of really good K arguments out there that Iâm less familiar but would love to learn more about so run whatever you want. Even if itâs not my cup of tea, Iâll vote for it.
Straight up:
Iâm cool with straight up but please frame it within antiblackness and/or colonization and/or capitalism or some other structuring event. Tell me the story of how investor confidence is connected to legacies/continuations of extracting resources or pushing out labor or whatever. If youâre going to run it, own what youâre advocating for and move on. If youâre if ideologically opposed to the structure/event framing, thatâs cool, Iâve got issues with it too, just frame your arguments within the context of a larger history. If you donât, I wonât vote you down necessarily, but youâll be at the low end of my speaker point range (28/28.1).
Speed and decision making:
Iâm fine with speed and speed Kâs. I will tank your speaks if you donât slow down for a team that calls slow. In the MO/LOR/PMR you need go at least one step slower than your top speed and pick the arguments that matter. Stop extending everything. I start my round analysis with the team that has the conceptually clearer rebuttal, see if I think theyâve won the arguments they claim they have, and then go through the other teamâs rebuttal. If you donât funnel your arguments through the role of the ballot, I might do that for you, and Iâve voted teams down for losing under their own role of the ballot.
Quirky stuff:
I donât need proven abuse to vote on theory but in a close framework debate, I tend to lean towards justice over fairness. Iâm usually a flow judge but if thatâs a bad way of evaluating your arguments, Iâm happy to switch to something else just walk me through what you want me to do. I will keep flowing because if I donât, I will forget your arguments/performance/whatever. Iâve never voted for presumption and if you go for presumption, youâre probably already losing. If you tell me to gut check my arguments, I will and my gut will tell me Iâm hungry. If you tell me to use my intuition, I will but I will not confine my intuition to one argument so be prepared for those consequences. I fundamentally donât believe contradictions are a think for the K perm so if youâre neg, you need DA(s) to the perm not reasons why it wonât work. Iâm working on protecting in the rebuttals but only for very big things, if you think itâs small but key, call the point of order. Frankly, I would prefer if you didnât trust me and just called it.
Will vote you down over:
I saw something in Lila Lavenderâs philosophy and really liked it so Iâm adding a version of it. I reserve the right to vote you down for being overtly oppressive. This means if you say racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, Islamophobic, etc stuff, I reserve the right to vote you down. If you do any of those things directly to your competition, I definitely reserve the right to vote you down. However, thereâs a chance if a competitor does this in a way that outsiderâs might not realize is violent, nonverbally, or during crosstalk, I wonât process it happening during the round so if this is happening in-round, I prefer you pointing that out. That said, calling something generic violence or âwe couldnât say this and thatâs violentâ? is not what Iâm talking about.
Bill Brown - Ohlone College
Blake Longfellow - DVC
I am primarily an IE coach and very much approach forensics (including debate) as a communication/persuasive activity. I approach debate with the mindset that all stories are arguments and all arguments are stories. With that said, the story which is the most internally cohesive (narrative probability) and that lines up across the debate (narrative fidelity) is likely to win my ballot.
Here is a list of things Paul Villa thinks you should know about debating in front of me:
- Truth over tech: Blake isn't flowing the debate like this is the national circuit, he is going to take minimal notes, you aren't going to win by pointing out some drop on the flow or technical analysis of the round.
- Don't spread. Like, at all. However fast you are thinking will be fine I'd go slower than that.
- Reading theory is a non-starter, if the other team isn't topical just tell Blake they aren't topical and explain why that means they should lose the debate without getting all technical.
- Blake would probably vote on a K, especially a performance one, assuming it made sense to him in the round.
- Less is more, the more simple the path to the ballot for you the more likely Blake is to vote for you.
Hal Sanford - Santa Rosa
Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the
debaters? In round, be nice to each other, be
civil. Don't
belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or
dumb. Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than
you. Do you want the karma and curse that comes with being a bully?
Seriously?! You are smarter than that,
better than that!
Short Version: I'm a stock issues judge, not fond of Ks,
although a summer debate camp and years of creative students have made me more receptive,
if run well. Thank you Joe Allen. I'll vote for the team displaying
the preponderance of persuasion, theoretical ties going to the negative.
Long Version: Some debaters may want more. Here's
more. Remember, being electronic, its length does not link to damaging
environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the
philosophy.
What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a
debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.
AFFIRMATIVE: Make sure you are topical. Reasonable
definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best." I
feel constraining the affirmative to the “best” definition removes their right
to define and preparation time. However,
negative ground must be provided within the affirmative definition. I once saw a debate where an affirmative
team’s definitions attempted to lock the negative into defending female
circumcision, on children, against their will, in unsanitary conditions, with
loss of sexual function. Uh, that is
not reasonable ground.
In policy rounds, show me a post-plan world is better than one
defended by the negative. Weigh impacts. If ten people die in
Cleveland, that may outweigh a ski-billionth of a percent chance of extinction
and/or nuclear war. Show your solution
is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).
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.
NEGATIVE: In policy, raise topicality only if it is a
genuine issue. Too often negatives think they are being clever with
"time suck" 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. 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. Explain how the affirmative plan does not solve the problem or is
not workable.
In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your
criteria are superior to the affirmative's in relation to the resolution.
Weigh societal impacts under each competing criteria, showing how your interpretation
leads to a better world. Finally, if the
affirmative must prove primacy of one object (e.g., security) over another (e.g.,
privacy), the negative should claim the win upon demonstrating object equality
or reversed primacy.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me. Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win. Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution. Affirmative must win all four to win round. Stock issues are:
1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s)
justify an affirmative ballot.
Topicality: Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors
are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued
by negatives. You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me
buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a
negative drop, I'll really resist.
Counter plans: It should be non-topical; otherwise, there
are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one
actually listed as affirmative. I am probably in the minority here, but
that is my view. CPs should be
competitive, meaning there is a genuine, forced choice between the plan and
counter plan. Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing
both is bad. In both cases, however,
there should still be a unique reason why plan alone is bad, like your
disadvantage.
Critiques: Given equal teams, the critique most likely will
lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is usually when a weaker team does
not argue adequately. I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to
the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality. Good luck selling
me that K whose central premise is that ”we should all hurry up and die
because life's greatest gift is death." Really? I vote on the
flow, but I won't turn off my brain. Still, if your names are
Robert or Sterling, I might buy it. They were eloquentus-maximus.
Weighing: Explain why you win. Weigh impacts.
Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show
how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? SPEED - NFA-LD: This is not supposed to be an audition for a
speed-freak auctioneer. Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the
event. That said, I heard debaters last year and none were “too fast” for
the event. If somebody goes “too fast”, I
would be receptive to an attack on that delivery. After
all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right? If I or
the opponent call "clear" or “slow”, heed that request.
SPEED - PARLI: Be sure you really have quality arguments
that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear,
organized, and persuasive. I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll
be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.
JARGON: Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do
all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept. For
example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and
destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is
mistaken. Say something like: "Perm. Do both the plan
and the counter plan. 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. 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."
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS: Please be organized. I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated. I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count. I will not consider arguments made after time elapses. If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.
Kyle Johnson - Las Positas
n/a
Lemar Karimi - SJSU
n/a
Mark Nelson - Santa Rosa
n/a
Reed Ramsey - DVC
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
TL;DR: I won't punish you for not debating the way I like, but I can't "hang". Speed and Ks not recommended, but I won't vote you down unless your opponent gives me a decent reason to. Give me direct and clear reasons to vote for you. Have fun in the round.
I'm a community college Parliamentary Debate coach.
I protect the flow in rebuttals based on what I have on my flow. Feel free to call points of order if you'd really like to, though.
I do my best to vote the way the debaters tell me to and to be tabula rasa. With that having been said, I think everyone has biases and I want to tell you mine. I won't ignore any of your arguments out of not liking them, but my biases could lower the threshold for refutation on an argument I dislike.
What I like to see most in debates is good clash. To me, good clash means link refutations and impact comparisons.
I'm comfortable with theory and you can run whatever procedural you'd like. I prefer to vote on articulated abuse rather than potential abuse. While I'm happy to vote on procedurals if it's called for, I've never walked out of a round thinking, "Wow! What a great T!"
I don't like K's. I've voted on them before, I'll probably end up having to vote for a K again, but I'm not happy about it. Specifically, I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard.
I prefer that you don't spread, but I can keep up with decent speed. I'll tell you to slow if I need you to slow down.
Please be inclusive of your opponents and (if there are other judges in this round) the other judges on the panel.
It's important to me that this activity:
a) be a useful experience for competitors' lives outside of forensics
b) be enjoyable enough to be worth giving up weekends instead of sleeping in and watching cartoons.
Lastly, if I make jokes please pretend to think I'm funny. I don't have much else going for me.
Sean Cox-Marcellin - MJC
edit: I made this paradigm for policy, but the broad strokes apply. Feel free to ask me clarifying questions before round.
Okay, I agree with Jared Anderson:?�?� "Prep stops when you have a) hit send on the email, or b) pulled the flash drive out."
About me:?�?� I debate in college, with most of my experience in NPDA Parliamentary and NFA-LD. I'm familiar with jargon, theory, "kritikal" arguments, and can follow speed to a degree. Feel free to ask me clarification or specific questions before round. I want to be in the evidence chain, whether you're using email (scoxmarcellin@gmail.com) or speechdrop or whatever. (I'm a big fan of speechdrop). I'll flow what you say, though.
General / Quick Overview:?�?� I consider myself a flow judge, and when it comes to the end of the round that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. Impact analysis in the rebuttal is essential. I think any judge who believes they're tabula rasa is deceiving themselves, but I do try to check my biases and will try not to bring in information external to the round. In round arguments and their analysis takes priority.
Theory:?�?� I like a good theory debate. I think it can be used to 1) collapse and win, 2) prevent shifting or other unfair actions, or 3) as a time trade-off (pure strategery). Whoever reads the theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interp level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (whether I'm rejecting the argument or the team) and why it's more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate as a whole). In your rebuttal, if you collapse to the theory position, it's vital you close all doors. Don't give me any choice but to vote on your theory.
I have some reservations for accepting "Reverse Voting Issues" (RVIs) on theory. By default, if the Aff wins the T, or Neg wins the "Condo Bad" position, I don't automatically vote for them. If you can articulate and impact out good reasons why, and the other side undercovers it, I'll vote on it. But don't blip out a "timesuck" argument and expect to win on it. Kritiks of theory, or linking it through the framework debate can be effective, and is underutilized.
Theory need not be an island. Connect it to the rest of the debate: the weighing mechanism, the kritik, etc. I think it's effective to leverage framework arguments from the first constructives on theory, and vice versa.
Kritik:?�?� I have heard some kritikal arguments, and I've run some kritikal debate, so I have familiarity with the structure. That said,?�?� do not assume I am familiar with the lit?�?� of your author or the ideas being discussed. I believe that someone who presents a kritikal argument has a burden of presenting it clearly enough to connect it to something in the round and impacting it out. I am skeptical of links of omission.
Role of the Ballot / How I vote:?�?� I think the rebuttals are really important speeches. It's a opportunity to clean up and clarify a busy debate into a few key issues that overpower or control the others. I tend to flow rebuttals on a separate sheet of paper, while looking at the arguments you're referencing next to it.?�?� I want you to tell me where to vote, how to evaluate the round, how to weigh different impacts against each other. Don't make me do the work for you.?�?� Ideally, justification for this should have come up before the rebuttals, and I could literally be going through your previous speeches with a highlighter. I also realize this is almost never the case. I think black swan impacts and "reductio ad extinction" are more emotionally effective than probablilistic / systemic impacts, but that's a human fallibility that I'm susceptible to, absent impact framing. I don't think they're logically better.
A magnitudinal impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in probability. A systemic impact that is mitigated by link-level arguments might be reduced in magnitude. One of these impacts is still triggering 100% of the time. Use that. Timeframe analysis is sorely under-utilized.
I'm open to non-traditional roles of the ballot, just be sure to justify it and be prepared to defend it. I default to net benefits, but I'll vote on stock issues, presumption, or "whoever best deconstructs post-truth debate." RotB is as much a part of the debate as any other argument.
Speed:?�?� I'm used to fast debate, but even I can get spread out by the fastest teams when they're dumping analytics at top speed without explication. Evidence-based debate can get really fast, and that's fine, but I recommend you?�?� emphasize your taglines?�?� and slow a little for them if you want to ensure I flow them. I don't like speed (or anything else) being used as a tool to exclude, and am receptive to well-run arguments about that.
Evidence:?�?� Quality of evidence debates are cool. Reading the other team's small-text at them is also cool. I like to see interesting analysis of evidence, and comparisons between different cards in the debate. Quality can beat quantity, but yeah, quantity has its uses too.
Speaker Points:?�?� Arbitrary and problematic, but if I just gave everyone 29.7-30 then it's arbitrarily better for people who get me as a judge. I'm not sure what to do about that. My normal range is 26-30.
Remember that you're debating in front of and with people. To win, you never need to act in ways that intentionally hurt someone.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Spencer Coile - ILSTU
Susan Houlihan - Santa Rosa
n/a
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Taure Shimp - MJC
ALL DEBATE EVENTS
Everyone in the room is here to learn, develop skills, and have a good time. Treating one another with a sense of humanity is really important to me as a coach, judge, and audience member. Debate is invigorating and educational, but I only enjoy it when a positive communication climate between participants is the foundation.
IPDA
I hope to see clear contentions that include cited evidence and well-developed warrants. Debaters should utilize ethos/pathos/logos appeals throughout to demonstrate well-rounded speaking abilities. I expect IPDA debates to be accessible to lay audiences. This means maintaining a conversational rate of speech, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and presenting arguments that engage in a clear way with the resolution.
PARLI
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. Things I value in this event include courteous treatment of all participants, conversational rate of speech, and sign-posting on all arguments. Do your best to make the impact calculus really clear throughout but especially rebuttals. Of course I'll do my best to consider whatever arguments you choose to present in the round, but if you have any pity in your heart please don't run Kritiks. Feel free to communicate with your partner, but I only flow what the recognized speaker says during their allotted time.
LD
Probably best to treat me like an IPDA / IE judge in this event. It's important to me that rate of speech remain more conversational. I want to understand and consider the arguments you present to the full extent possible and this is hard for me when the rounds get fast. I usually appreciate being able to view debaters' evidence on something like Speech Drop, but please don't expect that I am reading along word for word with you. Otherwise, I appreciate courtesy between opponents; clear sign-posting; and impact analysis that makes my job as easy as possible.
Thanks and I'm looking forward to seeing you all in-round!
Tina Lim - SJSU
n/a