Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
Aaron Champagne - Claremont
n/a
Aaron Otto - WU Grad School
n/a
Alana Bellwood - Independent USU
n/a
Alex Just - Cornell
n/a
Alex Martel - U of Rochester
n/a
Alexander Bober - TKC
n/a
Alexis Pierce - LMU
n/a
Alfred Snider - Vermont
n/a
Alia Bellwood - U of Rochester
n/a
Allen Amundsen - Humboldt
n/a
Allen Amundsen - Humboldt
n/a
Alvince Pongos - Ohio Wesleyan
n/a
Alyse Markancek - Ball State
n/a
Amanda Harmon - WU Grad School
n/a
Amie Collins - Alaska
n/a
Andrew Griggs - George Fox
n/a
Andrew Livingston - Colgate
n/a
Andrew Riley - WU Grad School
n/a
Ari Lamb - La Verne
n/a
Arthur Rennels - UCM
Austin Schwartz - Independent USU
n/a
Becca Owen - Willamette
n/a
Ben Mills - Willamette
n/a
Biff Griffith - Carroll
n/a
Blaine Denton - Independent USU
n/a
Bo Zheng - China Debate
n/a
Bojana Skrt - Vermont
n/a
Bojana Skrt - Independent USU
n/a
Charlene Haskin - La Verne
n/a
Christopher Le - Willamette
n/a
Collin Thibodeaux - WU Grad School
n/a
Cory Chabot - La Verne
n/a
Curtis Mahoney - Colgate
n/a
Dan Lair - UM-Flint
n/a
Dan Adler - Portland State
n/a
Dana Ovsak - Alaska
n/a
Danielle Stevens - Willamette
n/a
Darrah Johnson - Willamette
n/a
Darrin Hicks - DU
n/a
David Ovcharenko - La Verne
n/a
David Register - Vermont
n/a
David Childers - Independent USU
n/a
David Hernandez - Independent USU
n/a
David Denomi - Independent USU
n/a
Davis Holstege - Willamette
n/a
Denis Sapranov - Regis
n/a
Do Kwon - Stanford
n/a
Emily VanGerpen - Humboldt
n/a
Emily Ravenscroft - LMU
n/a
Emily Detlefs - DU
n/a
Eoin Kilkenny - Independent USU
n/a
Eric Barnes - HWS
n/a
Gary Rybold - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold</p> <p> </p> <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>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:</p> <p><strong>PREFERENCES – </strong>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.</p> <p><strong>CRITIQUES</strong> - 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.</p> <p><strong>SPEED – </strong>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.</p> <p><strong>ULTIMATE GOAL</strong> - 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.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
George Fitzpatrick - STJ
n/a
Gina Iberri-Shea - USAFA
Guy Chevalier - NU
n/a
Heather Brown - George Fox
n/a
Hyo Sung Joo - Claremont
n/a
Isaac Loeb - Independent USU
n/a
Isaac Ramirez - CSUF
n/a
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
Jaime Wright - STJ
n/a
Jake Meany - Claremont
n/a
James Tallmon - PHC
n/a
Jan Hovden - Bates
n/a
Janelle Davis - Linfield
n/a
Jason Edwards - GCC
n/a
Jason Smith - WU Grad School
n/a
Jennifer Rankin - Bard
n/a
Jennifer Salame - George Fox
n/a
Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State
n/a
Jing Zhou - Claremont
n/a
Joe Provencher - UHM
n/a
Joey Amdahl - Willamette
n/a
John Patrick - La Verne
n/a
John Schultz - Purdue
Jon Conway - Ball State
n/a
Joseph Damiba - Cornell
n/a
Joseph Flores - Tx State
n/a
Josh Martin - Independent USU
n/a
Joshua Acosta-Duque - La Verne
n/a
Kate Nagatani - GCC
n/a
Katherine Teubl - TKC
n/a
Katherine Denning - WU Grad School
n/a
Katie Madden - La Verne
n/a
Kelly Welch - Seattle
n/a
Kelsey O'Dea - Independent USU
n/a
Kelsie O'Dea - Portland State
n/a
Korbin Coskey - LMU
n/a
Korey Pace - Independent USU
n/a
Kristine Leonard - La Verne
n/a
Kunal Data - Stanford
n/a
Laura Braithwait - WU Grad School
n/a
Lauren Thomas - Claremont
n/a
Lauren Richards - Willamette
n/a
Leah Salgado - Cornell
n/a
Libby Boone - George Fox
n/a
Maclean Andrews - PLNU
Maggie Hildebrand - Claremont
n/a
Manda Hicks - Boise State
Manos Moschopoulos - Independent USU
n/a
Mansi Sanghavi - WU Grad School
n/a
Marcus Paroske - UM-Flint
n/a
Maria Papaleo - Davis
Mariah Carrillo - George Fox
n/a
Mark Meek - WU Grad School
n/a
Mark Craven - WU Grad School
n/a
Marta Tarantsey - Willamette
n/a
Martin Haas - Adelphi
n/a
Mary Nugent - Vermont
n/a
Matt Vazquez - Cape Cod
n/a
Michael Coulter - GCC
n/a
Michael Favale - George Fox
n/a
Monica Ferris - Independent USU
n/a
Morgan Chinn - NU
n/a
Morgan Balaz-munn - SFU
n/a
Natalie Holland - La Verne
n/a
Natalie Bold - Seattle
n/a
Nativad Zavala - Willamette
n/a
Nick McGrail - Independent USU
n/a
Pranav Pia - Stanford
n/a
Rachel Mills - Linfield
n/a
Rachel Fabian - Independent USU
n/a
Rakib Sikder - Colgate
n/a
Rebecca Aguilar - La Verne
n/a
Rich Boltizar - Yale
n/a
Rob Ruiz - La Verne
n/a
Rob Gaffney - WU Grad School
n/a
Robert Boller - UHM
n/a
Robert Margesson - Regis
n/a
Robert Snow - PHC
n/a
Robert Parker - Willamette
n/a
Roberto Saicido - Stanford
n/a
Seamus Nelson - Tx State
n/a
Sean Spurlock - TKC
n/a
Sean Partch - MHCC
Shaadee Ahmadnia - La Verne
n/a
Shako Liu - USC
n/a
Shauna Marshall - NU
n/a
Shayna O'Dea - Portland State
n/a
Shelby Jo Long - Rocky
n/a
Shengwu Li - Stanford
n/a
Skip Rutledge - PLNU
<h1>Skip Rutledge Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> <p>25 +/- years judging debate 14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary</p> <p>6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Academic Debate Background:</strong> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Judging Paradigm:</strong> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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..</p>
Sophia Sanders - Seattle
n/a
Steve Llano - STJ
n/a
Steve Johnson - Alaska
n/a
Steven Jones - GCC
n/a
Tanya Al-Sheikh - LMU
n/a
Theresa Porter - La Verne
n/a
Thomas Dowd - HPU
<p> Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in high school and four years in college. I have coached/taught a variety of debate formats for about 10 years including NDT, CEDA, NPTE, NPDA, and BP. I have not judged any NPDA rounds this year.</p> <p> Speed: Fine with me. My preference is for strong reasoning on links and solvency and good stories in rebuttals.</p> <p> Topicality: Fine with me. My preference is for brightline interpretations, fair ground, education, and that it is a voting issue.</p> <p> Counterplans: Fine with me. My preference is for clear plans and smart permutations and against conditionality and generics.</p> <p> Kritiks: Fine with me.. My preference is for topic specifics, a clear and reasonable assessment of impacts, and against generics.</p> <p> Decision making: I tend to vote based on the flow. I prefer teams to debate straight up with topic specifics and critical perspectives. I think debate is a combination of education and competition. If compelled to intervene I tend to err toward common sense. </p>
Tiffani Smith - CSUF
n/a
Tina Bencik - Claremont
n/a
Tom Dionesotes - Independent USU
n/a
Tom Proctor - UCLA
Venice Torres - La Verne
n/a
Vienna Farlow - HWS
n/a
Will Riley - La Verne
n/a
William Hayes - Adelphi
n/a
Zach Tschida - Puget Sound
Zack Cairns - Willamette
n/a