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.

Aditya Sharma - IVC

Allan Axibal-Cordero - PCC

n/a

Ana Sahagun - Cerritos College

Ana Petero - Solano

1.   I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED, so DON'T DO IT IN FRONT OF ME! If you don't speed when you're having a conversation or in your platform speeches or in your limited prep events, then don't do it in debate. Debaters often talk about being excluded in a debate round; don't exclude your critics. 2.  Do not speak when it is not your turn to speak. Each of you has your own special time to speak, so don't interrupt your partner. It's rude to interrupt people when they're speaking...yes, even in debate, unless you're asking them a point of information. 3.  Have fun; be clear, and above all, be structured...

Analicia Avila - Cerritos College

Anthony Cresto - Hired Judges

n/a

Ashley Graham - El Camino

This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game.  Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win.  While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds. Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round.  That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important.  On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations.  This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds.  On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism.  I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them. On Speed: Overall speed is okay.  Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity.  Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice. On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to.  This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated.  For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response.

Aubrey Manahan - El Camino

Ben Porter - El Camino

Bill Sparks - Cerritos College

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Bryan Malinis - OCC

CLS Ferguson - IVC

Carey Hayes - Mt SAC

n/a

Chathi Anderson - IVC

Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies   2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.   I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.   FYI:  I started debating last year and competed  in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized.  Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.   I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Christopher Ung - Mt SAC

n/a

Crystal Watson - PCC

n/a

Dana-Jean Smith - OCC

~~The first affirmative speaker must present a coherent case that addresses the stock issues of the particular debate. The first affirmative speaker must also provide a case that overcomes their prima facie burden and is topical for me to consider further argumentation. The first negative speaker’s job is to hold the affirmative accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities structuring a debate. Next, I do take kritiks and procedurals into consideration if they are well-structured and well-justified. Competitors must make both aprioi issues if they would like me to look at implications of reasoning or impacts of violating rules prior to the case when making a decision. Indeed, parliamentary debate resolutions are claims of fact, value, OR policy. Furthermore, I only take developed arguments into consideration. Claims must be backed by reasoning and evidence. Claims must also be linked to the plan, resolution, and or value of a debate. Lastly, speakers should not spread as strategy for decreasing their opponents’ comprehension of their case. While I can keep up with a fast rate of delivery, speakers must respect their opponents’ request to clear and or repeat information. If a speaker decides to speed, he or she must provide internal summaries in a normal/conversational rate of delivery.

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Das Nugent - OCC

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.

David Finnigan - Hired Judges

n/a

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Duane Smith - LAVC

n/a

Elizabeth Istrati - Mt SAC

n/a

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Eric Herbeck - Mt SAC

n/a

Erin Harris - OCC

I believe delivery is as important as the arguments being made in a debate round, so I do not like speeding. I like a clean debate, and focus on stock issues. I do not like kritiks.

Erin Crossman - Rio

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.

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)      I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.           I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.  If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)

Greg Poff - Solano

My judging paradigm comprises 3 elements:  stock issues, policy-maker, and educator.   Stock issues:  The stock issues should play a key issue in the round.  On policy resolutions this should include significance (harms), inherency, and solvency weighed against disadvantages, plan attacks and other off-case positions.  I seldom vote on Topicality, but will consider it a voter if the case is obviously non-topical.  Please make your definitions as “real world” as possible, and I appreciate hearing the actual issues inherent in a resolution debated, and not some silly, stretch-of the-imagination interpretation.  If you resort to this you will lose lots of speaker points, and probably the round. Also, I love case clash from the Opp., and will reward them generously if this is done in the LOC.  I see counterplans more as a strategic, rather than a policy tool, so if used, stick with them to make Gov. justify case.  I don’t want to hear conditional or topical counterplans either.  I also believe the wording of the resolution matters in terms of policy, value and fact resolutions.  Value and fact debates should include both definitive and designative stock issues.   My policy-maker orientation means that I will usually weigh case side significance and solvency against disads and workability off-case.  If there is not a significant disad it is unlikely you will get my ballot on the Opp.  I tend to vote for “risk-free” plans.  This weighing style carries over to value debates as well. In essence, tell me why your arguments are better than your opponents.  Keep me from intervening by making decisions for me.   Finally, my educator paradigm.  This simply means that above all else, I am a teacher.  I will reward sound refutation with good speaker points.  Show me you’re thinking!  Stand when you speak.  Listen to others respectfully.  I won’t tolerate tag-team debate.  You should be able to ask and answer your own questions.  I consider your speaking style to be an important aspect of debate.  Speed is a problem if you lack clarity.  Adapting will get you points and perhaps the ballot.  Ignoring this philosophy will probably cost you.  Above all, enjoy!

Haley Strickland - OCC

Harrison Shieh - El Camino

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

James Dabaggian - PCC

Janene Whitesell - Solano

n/a

Jannese Davidson - Hired Judges

n/a

Jen Page - IVC

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best. Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad). Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff). Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round.  Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote). Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments. Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

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.

Juan Victorio - El Camino

Juan Victorio - CBU

Juliana French - IVC

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Katie Barone - Cerritos College

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Lance Bubak - Hired Judges

n/a

Larry Radden - Saddleback

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.

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Margaret Beesley - Mt SAC

n/a

Mark Crossman - El Camino

Matt Hinkle - IVC

Matt Volz - IVC

Matthew Porter - Hired Judges

n/a

Michael Leach - Canyons

n/a

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.

Natalie Meany - Hired Judges

n/a

Nathan Wensko - Saddleback

Nick Williams - IVC

Peter Doesburg - IVC

Rich Ferguson - IVC

Richard Wickham - CBU

Roger Willis - Mt SAC

n/a

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!

Ruika Kumagai - Mt SAC

n/a

Sarah Sherwood - Glendale, CA

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

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!

2014 Tabor Venitsky and LD Champs