FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Soto! - PCC

There are three things you should know about me. First, I competed in Parliamentary debate for four years and then I spent two year coaching debate. I have been judging debate tournaments for the past four years. The second thing you need to know about me is that I majored in Rhetoric and Political Science. If you run a Kritik, be sure to give me the philosophical framework behind it and a functional alternative. The final piece of background information you need to keep in mind during while writing your case is that I work in the healthcare insurance industry. This is especially important if you choose to run a HealthCare Reform or Mental Health case. My approach to decision making is very simple: I base my decision solely on the arguments made in-round. There are two important notes about this. First, I can only write as fast as I can write. If you decide to go for speed and spread your opponent out of the round, be sure I am flowing your important points. Bottom line: If I don’t have it on the flow at the end of the round, I’m not voting on it! Second, I will still vote for you if you choose to argue incorrect facts. However, I will let you know at the end of the round what was incorrect and it will affect your speaker points. Forensics is a communication event. Those who compete in debate should try to improve their ability to communicate effectively. Please be sure to carefully choose your words when you create and deliver your arguments. Sexist, offensive, or discriminatory language will make it very easy for me to vote for a Kritik. A final note on argumentation: if you are the opposition and you decide to run a Topicality, Trichotomy, Kritik, Plan Vagueness (or any other offensive position) and you decided to not address any of the government case; please be sure you win your off-case positions and that you outweigh all on-case impacts. I am open to all styles of debate and any position you decide to run. However, please justify your positions and run them correctly.

Alexander Mourad - Mt SAC

Andrew Martinez - OCC

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Ben Bates - LA City

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Brianna Lamanna - Concordia-CA

n/a

Carl Simmons - CBU

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

Daniel Lopez - PCC

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

Test 123

Dave Machen - PCC

I am still fairly new to debate so it's safe to qualify me as a lay judge. If you intend to use the jargon/vocab of the event I'd appreciate it if you define/explain your understanding of the term before applying it, otherwise it very well may not have any affect on my decision. I'm looking to be persuaded by reasonable arguments which uphold the resolution and/or criteria. From what I have learned so far I can tell you that I'm not a fan of topicality. It seems whiny, especially when the language of a resolution can be so ambiguous. It is highly unlikely I will vote on a technicality (and that is not a challenge or invitation to get me to do so). Also, I don't live in a vaccuum and ocassionally read the newspaper so if you are wrong about current events or other facts that I may know I won't vote in favor of you no matter how passionate you were or how little your opponents responded to said inaccurate facts. I don't like speed-talking cause I can't write that fast. I'd rather you have fewer arguments with great substance than a slew of shallow taglines with no backbone. Plus I don't write very fast, so try and keep it casual.

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Dshene Cotton - Cerritos College

n/a

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Aldana - Chapman

n/a

Eric Garcia - IVC

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn. There are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to bring them into the round. Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you CAN lose a round if you drop one little argument; if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts. I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."  A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up.  Because I try to base my decision based only on arguments that are made in the round, I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad. Likewise, you don't have to run only liberal positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or care if they are "true." In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

James Delahoussaye - OCC

Jeanne Dunphy - LA City

n/a

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jill McCall - Moorpark

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

Josh Fleming - PCC

I have been judging debate for 10 years now. I never competed in it but teach/coach it regularly. I'm not a fan of technical debate. I'd much rather watch a good exchange of arguments/ideas that will persuade me to buy in to whomever upheld the criteria the best. That being said I am still a fan of the old school stuff like stock issues, so feel free to integrate that into your constructive. I use my flow to guide my decision but don't feel it's necessarily a "who-has-more-Xs-or-Os" type thing. Don't talk fast. There's no need. I'd rather you have fewer arguments with more substance than a ton of taglines with no backbones. I rarely vote on T, especially when things get metaphorical. And just because you prepped out a T response doesn't mean you have to run it. Be organized. Don't be a jerk. I have no qualms voting you down simply because you were mean and rude. Also, don't be that person who talks over their partner while they are giving their constructive or answering a POI. That's so lame and it communicates to me that you don't have the confidence in your partner and therefore your case.Use common sense, avoid hypothetical and potential scenarios unless you can provide real-life examples that warrant them. Counter-plans are fine but rarely necessary and often the opp loses on them.  Finally, I don't live in a vaccuum and do read the newspaper ocassionally, so if you start telling me stuff I know to be untrue or inaccurate--no matter how passionate you were or how little your opponent responded to it--I won't include it into my decision.

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

JULES THROCKMORTON-FRENCH: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE   Background of the critic:   I've been involved with Parliamentary Debate for the last 10 years; whether that be competing, coaching, or judging. I competed from 2001-2004 for what was then known as the South Orange County Forensics Team (SOC). Since that time, I went on to earn my Juris Doctor at law school. However, my love for forensics brought me back to the speech and debate community. I've coached debate and individual events at both Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. I am also the Director of Individual Events at Concordia University.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I consider myself a flow judge. I don't have any particular likes or dislikes- I will be open minded to whatever you choose to run in front of me. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible. With that said, call every "point of order," or I will flow it.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   Communication is important as, after all, this is a communication event. However, good communication will only get you so far; I may award you high speaker points, but good communication skills will not necessarily win you the round. As far as speed goes, I am ok with a moderately-fast pace so long as it is CLEAR, necessary, and well signposted.  Remember that I have been focusing more on individual events this year, and as a result my flow has gotten a little slower. Be careful, b/c if you are going too fast I will not give any verbal signals.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:   I think a good debate involves offense and defense, and a good debater will never put all their eggs in one basket. However, there have been plenty of rounds where I've picked up OPP even though the on-case was conceded.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:   I will be open-minded to whatever you want to run.   Any additional comments:   I will time road maps!!! Make the round an easy call for me- weigh everything out and tell me EXACTLY where you're winning and why. Give me clear voters & tell me where to pull the trigger. Please be clear and signpost. Also, please do not be rude! Finally, I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe you should stand for your speeches, and if your partner has something to contribute they can simply pass a note rather than yelling out.

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Linda Tozzi - Cerritos College

n/a

Liza Rios - IVC

Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy       I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds.  I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet.

Loretta Rowley - Canyons

n/a

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Marc Ouimet - Palomar

Mark Faaita - El Camino

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Michael Marse - CBU

I am a traditional debate theorist.  I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years.  I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years. What I do not like: Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument.   Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus.  If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate. Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all.  It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others.  Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed.  Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me.  The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds.  Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly.  The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points. What I do like: Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better.  Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech.  Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances.  My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus.  I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation. Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win. Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric.  If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose.  Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc.  If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot. To conclude: The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory".  The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there.  We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries.  We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments.  The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate. Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.

Michael Miller - Glendale, CA

1/15/14 ...  PLEASE NOTE:  The original Post entered on the above date has been removed - on a voluntary basis, and by me, acting alone - for the reasons set forth below.  If you read my original Post, please understand that although I very much regret any "problems" it might have created, and I have removed it out of respect for the feelings of others, I stand by it.   Whether you read my original Post or not, I am ALWAYS eager to discuss Debate theory, and/or my "Judging Philosophy," and/or anything "Debate-related" - in excruciating (and some would say extremely BORING) detail - with anyone interested.  So please feel free to call me [818-952-05213] or email me [docdebate88@yahoo.com] and I will gladly answer any/all questions, explain any/all ambiguities in my previous Post, give careful consideration to any concerns/criticisms/complaints you might have about what I previously wrote, and - in short - do whatever I can to make our future relationship in Debate (if any) pleasant, educational, and enjoyable.  :)  - MHM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***  JUDGING PHILOSOPHY ADDENDUM - 2/5/14 ... *** I have most recently been informed, by persons for whom I have the greatest personal affection and professional respect, that my previous Post of 1/15/14 re: my "Judge Philosophy" was offensive and/or unacceptable to a significant number of the people who read it.  I was  - quite literally - shocked, saddened, and totally dumbfounded to learn that some people reading my original Post apparently believe that I am a "Sexist," and/or "filled with hate" and/or "exclusionary," and/or even  violent - "like the Unabomber."  So let me try to put people's minds at ease...  if that's possible. A.  I apologize most sincerely to anyone/everyone (without asserting any qualifications or offering any excuses) whom I offended. B.  I intended no disrespect/offense to anyone. C.  In my previous Post, I made what I earnestly believed to be a full, fair, and complete disclosure of my views re: Judging a (tournament) Debate.  I told the truth about myself - no more, no less.   D.   I am who I am.  Since the Fall of 1966 and to date, for almost 50 years, what I have done in Debate, I have always done in good faith, and with malice (and mallets) towards none.  What I believe about Debate is what I believe.   E.  To the best of my knowledge, information, and sincere belief: (1)  I am not a sexist. (2) I don't hate anyone connected with Debate in any way... at least, not that I know of.   (3) I don't want to "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything, and don't know how I could "exclude" anybody in Debate from anything - even if I wanted to. Last of all,  (4)  I am essentially a placid, gentle, and fun-loving person by nature (aged 65+ years), although I will defend myself and those I love if I (and especially they) were attacked. I  do not live in a secluded shack in the wilderness. I have never owned or possessed a firearm. I wouldn't have the first idea about how to make an IED (although I guess Seikel & I did "bomb out" in the 1969 NDT Final Round).  I do own some rather attractive "Hoodies," but I don't even have a pair of sunglasses.  And, because I have, in the past, worked in the immediate presence (touching distance) of several Presidents of the United States and/or nominees for the Presidency, I have been thoroughly checked out by both the FBI and the Secret Service and am not thought to be violent or "hate-filled." F.  In summation:  If who I am, how I live my life, and what I believe are no longer "acceptable" in the Debate Community, then that is my fate. As far as I am concerned, "Debate" owes me nothing.  I owe "Debate" everything. So now it would appear that it is up to "Debate" to express its "Judging Philosophy" about me.  Whatever decision "Debate" makes - I accept it... and with love and gratitude; but I am not going to disavow the lessons I have learned and deeply-held convictions, values and opinions about Debate that I have developed over a lifetime simply because other people may disagree with me.   WITH PARTICULAR RESPECT TO MY "JUDGING PHILOSOPHY," HERE IS MY UP-TO-DATE, REVISED - AND I HOPE NON-CONTROVERSIAL-  "READERS DIGEST" VERSION: 1.  I follow the NPDA Rules, the NFA-LD Rules, and any other written rules to the letter.  I always try to do this to the best of my ability, but consistent with reason, human compassion, and basic common sense. 2.  I believe that Topicality is a RULE, jurisdictional in nature, like a bounary line in sports; it is not, IMHO, a flexible, arguable "voting issue."   If the Negative/Opposition team/debater persuades me that a Plan violates the Topic, I will vote Negative.  If an Affirmative/Government team/debater persuades me that a Counterplan is Topical, I will - absent unforseen circumstances (which occur in almost every debate) - vote Affirmative. However, I am not an activist Judge on T; in other words, I will vote on T based ONLY upon what the debaters argue in the round - not based upon why I believe or infer. 3.  I will vote Negative if the Affirmative/Government/Proposition blatantly fails to set forth a prima facie case before the conclusion of the Constructive Speeches.  (I have judged literally thousands of debates since 1967, and I can think of only 2 in which, IMO, the Affirmative failed to do so.) 4.  I believe that "spreading," and "K's," and "Performances" are all inferior forms of debating, in that, by definition, they are intended to avoid an in-depth analysis/presentation of the facts about the topic area, to avoid genuine clash between competing intellects, and to win the Debate by circumventing the merits of an argument or arguments; however, I will vote for teams/debaters who employ such tactics - depending upon the unique circumstances of each round. 4.  I believe the basics skills of being a good debater are: A.  Look good (use Aethos); B.  Sound good  (use Pathos); C.  Make sense (use Logos); and, D.  Be courteous and respectful to eveyone involved in the process  (no Bozos).   I would hope that this clears up any problems, misapprehensions, misconceptions, etc. that I may have created via my previous - and obviously-inartful - Post.  Once again, please contact me if you would like any furtrher explanation, clarification, etc.   Thanks to all - and GOOD LUCK, EVEYONE!

Michael Rodriguez - El Camino

n/a

Nate Wensko - OCC

Nitzan Harrell - Grossmont

Noah Guest - IVC

Rachel Hastings - IVC

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Robyn Fielder - PCC

n/a

Roger Willis - OCC

When Judging parliamentary debate I look for solid arguments that are well explained. I do not mind the use of jargon, but I do not care for speeches that contain too much jargon and not enough substance. I do not like spreading. I enjoy an interesting position, even if there is a performance case, but I vote on who adequately argued their position on the resolution presented. I am happy to judge value, fact, or policy debates.   I have little experience judging or watching Lincoln Douglas debate, but I would look for well supported cases with appropriate evidence.

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Sean Connor - OCC

Shae _ - Mt SAC

Shawn O'Rourke - OCC

Shayna Lurya - OCC

Sherana Polk - OCC

First, I like arguments that just make logical sense.  Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic.  However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions.  Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it.  I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response.   Second, delivery is important.  The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable.  If you are spreading then you are less understandable.  If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you.  Please be organized and signpost where you are at.  If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you. Third, I think that there are three types of debate.  So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate.  Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me.  So run the proper case for the proper resolution.  If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there.  I also think that Gov should always stay on topic.  So if Gov is non-topical then run T.  I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue.  If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose.  So just argue the topic.  I am willing to listen to Kritiques.  I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue.  However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary.  So run it at your own risk.      Overall, I really like debate.  If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge.  So do your best!

2012 Tabor-Ventisky & Southern California LD Championships