Andrea Cervantes -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Ann Wright -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Beau McCoy -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Beth Rosenblum -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Brianna Morales -- San Francisco State Universityn/a
Cheryl O'Donnell -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Chris Rendon -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Gabriel King -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Heather Rodriguez -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Jared Anderson -- Sacramento State Universityn/a
Jeff Carew -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Jim Butler -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Justin Perkins -- Sacramento State Universityn/a
Kim Yee -- San Jose State Universityn/a
Mary Rayappan -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Nancy Reyes -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Nathan Steele -- City College San Franciscon/a
Pablo Ramirez -- San Francisco State University
Peggy Mayfield -- Hartnell Collegen/a
Robert Hawkins -- Diablo Valley Collegen/a
Ryan Guy -- Modesto Junior College
Modesto Junior College
Video Recording:Â I always have a webcam with me. If you would like me to record your round and send it to you, check with your opponent(s) first, then ask me. I'll only do it if both teams want it, and default to uploading files as unlisted YouTube links and only sharing them with you on my ballot (I'll leave a short URL that will work once I am done uploading... typically 4n6URL.com/XXXX). This way no one ever has to bug me about getting video files.
Online Tournaments: (I can screen capture the debate if you all want a copy of it).
I was a parli debater at Humboldt State in the mid 2000s
I've coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA and a little bit of BP, and CEDA since 2008.
I teach argumentation, debate, public speaking, and a variety of other COMM studies courses
In NFA-LD Post AFFs you have run on the case list or I get grumpy (https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/)
UseÃ???Â speechdrop.netÃ???Â to share files in NFA-LD and Policy Debate rounds
NOTE: If you are paper only you should have a copy for me and your opponent. Otherwise you will need to debate at a slower conversational pace so I can flow all your edv. arguments. (I'm fine with faster evidence reading if I have a copy or you share it digitally)
Im fine with the a little bit of speed in NFA-LD and Parli but keep it reasonable or I might miss something.
Procedurals / theory are fine but articulate the abuse
I prefer policy-making to K debate. You should probably not run most Ks in front of me.
I default to net-benefits criteria unless you tell me otherwise
Tell me why you win.
General Approach to Judging:
I really enjoy good clash in the round. I want you to directly tear into each other'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'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments I'm going to be disappointed.
Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around if necessary 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.
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.
If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some other time during the tournament.
Kritiques: I'm probably not the judge you want to run most K's in front of. In most formats of debate I don't think you can unpack the lit and discussion to do it well. If you wish to run Kritical arguments I'll attempt to evaluate them as fairly as I would any other argument in the round.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. You should probably go slower with these types of positions as they may be new to me, and i'm very unlikely to comprehend a fast kritik.
I will also mention that Im not a fan of this memorizing evidence / cards thing in parli. If you dont 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.
Weighing: 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 Im in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round? Do some impact calculus and show me why you won.
Speed: Keep it reasonable. In parli speed tends to be a mistake, but you can go a bit faster than conversational with me if you want. That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments. If you cant do that and go fast, slow down. If someone calls clear Ã??Ã?Â¦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'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.
Online Tournaments:Â Speed and web based debate does not work.Â Slow down or everyone will miss stuff.Â
Speed in NFA-LD: I get that there is the speed is antithetical 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 clear or "slow." That said if you use "clear" or "slow" to be abusive and then go fast and unclear I might punish you in speaks. I'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.
If you do not flash me the evidence or give me a printed copy, then you need to speak at a slow conversational rate, so I can confirm you are reading what is in the cards. If you want to read evidence a bit faster...send me you stuff. I'm happy to return it OR delete it at the end of the round, but I need it while you are debating.
Safety:Â 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 for 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 educational 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.
NFA-LD SPECIFIC THINGS:
Files: I would like debaters to useÂ www.speechdrop.netÂ 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:Â email@example.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. I also worry it is ableist practice as some debaters struggle with text that can't be resized and searched. If you only use paper I would like a copy for the entire round so I may read along with you.Ã???Â If you can't provide a copy of your evidence digitally or on paper, you will need to slow down and speak at a slow conversational pace so I can flow everything you say.
Disclosure:Â I'm a fan of the caselist. 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 "accessibility" and "predictably" standards in T. Here is the case-list as of 2019. Get your stuff on it:Â https://nfald.paperlessdebate.com/Â If your opponent is anti-case list you should run a wiki spec / disclosure theory against them. I think that teams who chose to not disclose their affirmatives are abusive to teams who do.
LD with no cards:Ã???Â 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.
Speaker Points:Ã???Â 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 General Approach to Judging section, your speaks will be higher.
Topicality:AFF, make an effort to be topical. I'm not super amused by squirrely cases. Ill vote on T in all its varieties. Just make sure you have all the components. I prefer articulated abuse, but will vote on potential abuse if you don't answer it well. I'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.
I'm a NPDA and NFA-LD judge for the most part. Even in IPDA I prefer that you signpost your arguments and follow a logical structure for advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc. If it is a policy resolution you should probably fiat a plan action and argue why implementing it would be net-beneficial.
You get 30 minutes prep, you should cite sources and provide me with evidence. Arguments supported with evidence and good logic are more likely to get my ballot. I will vote on procedural arguments and other debate theory if it is run well in IPDA, but you should try to explain it a bit more conversationally than you would in other forms of debate. Try to use a little less jargon here. I flow IPDA just like I would any other form of debate. Please respond to each other and try not to drop arguments. A debate without clash is boring.