FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

$tirling McKenzie - Concordia-CA

n/a

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

Andrew Grimalda - Concordia-CA

n/a

Andrew Schinnerer - Saddleback

n/a

Annie Berry - Azusa

n/a

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

August Benassi - Moorpark

n/a

Bear Saulet - Concordia-CA

n/a

Brandan Whearty - Palomar

Cathy Wright - El Camino

n/a

Chris Hacela - IVC

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

Danielle Allen - Concordia-CA

n/a

Darwin Carlisle - Santa Clara

David Finnigan - Santa Clara

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 2 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School. Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible. Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads. Critically framed arguments: I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability. Topicality is good and it is an important aspect of the debate. Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained. Above all, have fun. Speaker points: you should work hard to earn your points through civility and solid speaking. Performance based arguments: Keep the thinking linear.

Diana Crossman - El Camino

Duane Smith - LAVC

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.

Eric Garcia - IVC

Erika Kennelley - CSULA

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.

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

Griffith Vertican - Concordia-CA

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jen Clarry - El Camino

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joe Laughon - Concordia-CA

n/a

Joey Mavity - Azusa

Notes collected over the 2012-2013 season most up-to-date version at http://bit.ly/myrfd   I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make. This makes it fairly easy for me to make my decision based on what you argue rather than what I think about an issue. Thus, while I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule. I probably over-value clever and snarky. I don’t value taking it too far. Argument Quality Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has not happened in the ‘11-’12 year, but it did twice in ‘10-’11. If you don’t respect co-participants enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people. Competition/Plan text My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution. As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan. “But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever. CP text Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today). Neutral concerns I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding. It’s difficult for me to vote on RVI’s. Points of Order I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.” Impact analysis Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often. Past RFDs I’ve made every single RFD since Fall 2010 available at <a href="http://bit.ly/myrfd">http://bit.ly/myrfd</a>. I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are. Time use Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.     <hr />   <h2>Coloring Book Edition</h2> Special thanks to Mike Allen <hr />

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Joseph Sindicich - Rio

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

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 Harris - Concordia-CA

n/a

Justin Perkins - Palomar

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

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.

Louis Korman - Brooklyn Colleg

n/a

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Mac Walker - Cypress

n/a

Maclean Andrews - PLNU

n/a

Marc Ouimet - Palomar

Matt Grisat - LSU

n/a

Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school. I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points. Speed and Delivery I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request. Procedurals For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me. Trichotomy Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them. Counterplans and Permutations Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy. Kritiks and Critical Arguments I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”). Performance Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting againstyour opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too. Criteria and Impact Calculus Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that. Contradictory Arguments I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up. Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner. RVI’s As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances. Order of Evaluation I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted). Labels and Unusual Arguments As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on. Misc. You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument.  I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect. Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

n/a

Michelle Brooks-Johnson - CMC

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Noah Guest - IVC

Paul Davis - Azusa

Rebecca Stewart - Glendale, CA

Reyna Velarde - CMC

n/a

Robear Maxwell - Concordia-CA

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!

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Steve Robertson - Saddleback

Tiffani Smith - CSUF

n/a

Tom Proprofsky - IVC

Walter Wright - El Camino

n/a

Will Prier - Concordia-CA

n/a

Willie Washington - CSUF

n/a

Zach Moss - Concordia-CA

n/a

2012 The Free at Concordia