AJ Moorehead - LAVC

Time starts on your first word. Please don't do the "Time... begins... NOWIAFFRIMTHE RESOLUTION" thing. I promise I know how to use a timer. Have been judging since 2001. Have coached some teams, have worked some camps, so I will probably understand your argument but I will not impact it for you. I believe the "perceptual debate" is real and I try not to get sucked into it. My default is to judge the round using the standard that has been agreed upon or defended more successfully. I will make other calculations if a debater proposes and defends that I should. I prefer to hear about the world rather than the round so please reserve procedural (theory) arguments and kritiks until you are absolutely out of things to say or until your opponent begins to observably cheat. All judges want a clear, numbered list of voting issues at the end of your final rebuttal and so do I. Better debaters will offer such a list at the end of each and every rebuttal.

---

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

---

Evan Gonzalez - PLNU

n/a

---

Gianna Banducci - PLNU

n/a

---

Michael Shurance - CUI

TLDR: Run whatever you want. Dont be afraid to run heterodox arguments in front of me. I welcome diverse perspectives and unique clash. Generally tech over true (as tech is the best method to prove/disprove something as true and I honestly don't know how or why they're portrayed as in competition with each other, but I digress).

Framework:

* Debate is a game (but games are important).

*I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently discriminatory in a way that makes debate inaccessible. ACCESSIBILITY: I believe access to the debate space is the clearest bright line for whether an argument warrants judge intervention. Examples of unacceptable arguments include white supremacy, Nazism/racial superiority, or ad hominem attacks on individual identity. I will drop anyone advocating for these positions or using these tactics. We all deserve respect and fairness, and this may be the only place we can truly get it.

* I aim to be the least interventionist judge you'll ever have. That said, I believe debate has become too ideologically limited. Most debaters have critical, leftist, or neoliberal frameworks in real life, which is fine, but this can create ideological bubbles that limit potential clash against ideas we might all agree on. For example, I hear debaters collapse to fascism bad arguments, but in all my years of debating, I've never heard a clear explanation of what fascism is or why its bad (I personally believe its a horrible political framework, but thats not the point). I don't want to grant framework concessions because I agree or disagree with them. I want clash about the various frameworks humanity uses in the real world (e.g., socialism good/bad, Marxism good/bad, capitalism good/bad, state good/bad) that are inherent to the status quo, as this generates the best education. This is especially true for survival strategies in an increasingly strange and chaotic world. Without this education, we cant properly define or differentiate ideologies in the real world, which allows dog-whistling or mischaracterization of ideologies due to surface similarities. This limits our ability to clash with harmful ideologies.

* I want fleshed-out rhetorical or philosophical impacts and analysis for political theory (K-level or case) and frameworks in general. For example, tell me WHAT fascism IS (historically or in the context of the status quo) and why its bad! (It should be easy, but do the work!) I dont want to intervene with my belief system, as I believe its largely irrelevant to the technicality of the debate and is the fairest approach. If you dont impact or explain your arguments and they're conceded, then cest la vie.

* TLDR Terminalize all impacts, not just material impacts.

Theory:

* Theory is cool.

* I ran it often as a debater because its a smart strategy for protecting against abusive affirmatives and spreading out your opponents outs in their speeches. I will vote on good theory. Use your standards as links to your voters. Explain why ground is lost, for example, and how that impacts fairness or education.

* I generally dont think theory operates a priori in the meta sense unless it addresses specific, "proven" abuse (which btw there's no such thing as proven abuse, that's why the theory needs to be run in order for YOU to prove abuse). My point here being you should have to defend all parts of your theory. However, if you claim it's a priori and its undisputed, then its a priori. Im open to hearing why this particular theory should be a priori or why theory ought to operate a priori, but I need more than rules of the game come before the game (the games already started, so too late?), i.e explain how your standards prove this must operate a priori. The a priori status is up for debate, and I need particularized reasons why your specific theory operates a priori in the context of the round (e.g., it was impossible to generate clash due to the cases format). If a priori is not defended or won, then its a normal off-case position arguing for different rules and standards that my vote would promote for better education/fairness, weighed against the affirmatives fiat education for running the case as they did.

* I default to competing interpretations, as I believe its the most reasonable judging method.

* Reasonability works if the theory isnt well-run or impacted out.

*More than three theories are probably excessive, but I won't police this, the other team should just point this out. If there's abuse, run a theory; if you want to enforce an interpretation, run a theory. If you want to throw your opponents off their game, or beat them to death with legal speak, run a theory. Do what you want!

Ks (In General):

* I like Ks.

* I like well-warranted and explained Ks much better. The K must operate in a way that makes the judges background and knowledge of the literature base irrelevant. Im familiar with many critical arguments, but that doesnt mean I'll do the work for you on framework or solvency.

*Contextualize the K within the broader context of the debate or the resolution. Explain your criticism! I especially like Ks with historical analysis and an education focus. To win my ballot, the K should link to the affirmatives solvency, plan text, or the squo itself in a fundamental way. I want strong, warranted framework arguments, link arguments, and solvency arguments. The alternative/advocacy must exist, and you need to explain why I shouldnt buy a permutation.

*A K without an alternative is just a harsh judgment of the status quo, which the affirmative likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that voting for the affirmative prevents, its just a try-or-die for the affirmative I feel (again do what you want I won't police).

*Advocacies aren't conditional in an ideal world, but kicking an advocacy is fine for strategic reasons. I'm more skeptical of affirmatives breaking procedural fairness, and I think T is a decent check back against this, but that just means that both teams have access to ground, and i'm agnostic on which comes first (y'all need to tell me which comes first and WHY). Again do what you want, just be strategic.

Performance Ks:

* Im fine with performance Ks, but I need clear solvency and education impact analysis.

* Clash is the internal link to education in debate, and the personal nature of performance Ks can make sometimes make clash inaccessible or too personal for me to judge objectively.

* I also don't really like how some performance K's try to bait the other team into saying something offensive and bascially make a bet that they won't want to clash with the K due to its personal nature. I will just say that due to the nature of debate, being offended is likely inevitable, but you should all do your best ALWAYS to be respectful and treat each other with dignity.

Aff Ks:

*The same rules apply for winning my ballot with an affirmative K.

* However, to run a K on the affirmative, you must prove a justified reason to reject the topic and show that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by your solvency or by avoiding defending the resolution.

* Im fine with rejections but need warrants for why its permissible. Im biased toward fairness-good/outweighs arguments from theory, so youll need to resolve some of this offense to win my ballot.

Speed:

* Im comfortable with speed and will keep up. However, if youre slowed or asked to be clearer, please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

* The flow is critical to how I judge. How well your opponent attacks your position or argument weighs heavily. Key arguments are more important than quantity, but I'll weigh all arguments. I love clash, so seek it out, and you'll be rewarded.

Impact Calc:

* For case I want you to do impact calc anyways and weighing. Be specific and clear in sequencing, magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

* It's a personal preference, but I like well warranted analysis about how impacts are more likely to actually occur. I'm semi skeptical of weak links between for high magnitude impacts. I will vote on them, and again if its dropped it's always true for the sake of the round, but if you're going for magnitude, or any of these impacts, warrant them out.

---

Nathan Estrick - CUI

Hey friends, not gonna make you read a treatise to understand my judging criteria. I debated six years in high school and then all four years doing primarily Parli (but also IPDA and LD). Overall, I do my best to be as tabula rasa as I can -- absent needing to intervene with a team being really racist/homophobic or verbally abusive to their opponents, I try to tie my ballot to only the arguments made in the round. On speed, I’m going to be able to keep up with you, but make sure you slow if your opponents ask you to.

 

That being said, here’s a little bit on how I evaluate some of the major arguments; 

 

Policy: Though I have plenty of experience running different kinds of arguments, I do have a soft spot for a good old policy round. In evaluating policy, Impacts really are king; though generating good uniqueness and winning your link chains are important, I tend to be somewhat sympathetic to try or die arguments, and so I find good Impact framing is usually what wins over my ballot. 

 

Counterplans: As far as counterplans go, I like them, but make sure they are at least competitive on net benefits. I tend to default to counterplans not having fiat, so the neg would need to argue to me that they do. I’m also somewhat sympathetic to PICS bad theory, so keep that in mind when writing your counterplans. 

 

Theory: I tend to have a pretty high bar for voting on theory: if you expect me to vote on it, I expect you to collapse to it. I’m not going to vote on a theory shell that the MO extends for two minutes and then spends the rest of the block doing other things. I also will generally be unsympathetic to weird or goofy theories; they can win my ballot, but unless the connection to fairness and education are made pretty strongly, they’re gonna have trouble picking up. 

 

The K: I like the K, and like to see different varieties run. Ultimately, I believe debate is a game and I think the K is a really strategic and interesting part of playing that game. That being said, if your K has really weak links to either the topic/the aff, I’m not going to be very interested in it, since you’re just pulling it out of a can as opposed to doing the work to contextualize it. I love K’s with good historical theory analysis and good solvency, so the more abstract the K becomes, the harder it becomes to win my ballot with it. 

---

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

---

Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU

n/a

---

Stephanie Jo Marquez - CSUF

n/a

---