FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Shelby Ekman - DU

n/a

Aaron Zamora - Pepperdine

Andre Fontana - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Annaliese Herms - NU

n/a

Austin Richards - DU

n/a

Britt Mckinley - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Caitlyn Corker - UCLA

n/a

Carl Decker - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Chris Byrd - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Christopher Flores - Claremont

n/a

Corey Henderson - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Darrin Hicks - DU

n/a

Darwin Mendyke - USC

n/a

Garrett Macdonald - DU

n/a

Ian Greer - UCLA

Name: Ian Greer   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: Graduating in June with a degree in Communication with a heavy emphasis on rhetoric and law, currently preparing for the LSAT and shopping for law schools.   Background: I gained some experience in debate and mock trial in high school, after which I served four of the best years of my life in the United States Marine Corps. After the military, I went to community college and debated in the NPDA circuit for two years. Currently I am an assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   General Philosophy: Debate, in my opinion, is a regulated verbal battle, and I fully expect to see fists flying and blows clashing (metaphorically of course). I cannot emphasize enough how much I love clash and contention, and thus greatly prefer solid substantive argumentation over weak but numerous points. I would like to think that I come into a round as unbiased as one can be, and am willing to hear out any and all arguments so long as they are clearly presented and well formed. I greatly prefer arguments to be impacted out, although I am not a fan of everything ending in nuclear war, genocide, or the next great depression (although if they are legitimate results, go for it!). Rather than show tenuous links to abhorrent atrocities, I prefer you make your impacts realistic and thoughtful. I am a fan of humor and wit, though keep it above the belt; ad hominem arguments, vulgarity and general rudeness will categorically receive a loss of both my vote and of speaker points. I enjoy narratives, with debaters skillfully painting a picture of how marvelous the world will be if their plan is implemented, or how terrible it will be if their opponents plan is employed. Lastly, I personally slightly prefer logos (appeals to logic) over pathos (appeals to emotion), although please do not let that dissuade you from using the latter.   Spreading: I feel that speeding and spreading is a tactic that defeats the purpose of debate and is best left to auctioneers, however I will not categorically vote against it if neither side voices an objection; however, please slow down or speak clearer if your opponent asks you to. Furthermore, it is in your best interest that I flow all of your arguments, and thus it would behoove you to speak at a pace at which I am able to flow. If I say “clear” and you do not slow down, I may not be able to flow some of what you are saying, which may negatively impact your case.   Trichotomy:  I am familiar with Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” and the standard tricot lines stating that “we prepared for X and they are running Y”, and I understand that having the gov run in a direction other than the one you predicted can be troublesome, but I believe that opp points prepared for one type of claim can still be applied, albeit with some doctoring, to any other claim type. I believe one of the qualities of greatest import to a skilled debater is adaptability, and that a debater should be able to think on the fly so as to still present to me a well thought out and thought provoking case. That being said, I would prefer if gov teams not stray from the intended resolution format and instead debate the resolution as it is meant to be debated. Don’t be abusive; if gov turns “Nature is more important that nurture” into a policy, I will more than likely side with the opp. To summarize, opp: please don’t run tricot unless absolutely necessary, gov: please don’t make it necessary.   Topicality: Similar to tricot, I am not a fan of T. I feel that I can decide on my own whether the gov has strayed too far from the topic, and do not need the opp to spend valuable time laying out a prefabricated argument as to why the gov is not topical. I am willing to give gov teams some leeway, but if an interpretation is wildly unpredictable or abusive I will vote opp. Opp teams, run T if you absolutely must, but I would greatly prefer that you simply leave the issue to my discretion. If gov is not topical I will vote against them, and if they are topical and you run T you have just wasted valuable time you could have instead used to persuade me to vote for you.   Kritiks / Critiques: I dislike K as much as I dislike spreading, if not more so. I feel that by participating in organized debate you have implicitly made an agreement to argue the resolutions laid out by the tournament, and if you take umbrage with the notion of fiat, the wording of a resolution, or the particular ideologies promoted therein, you should express your opinions after the round has ended. You may run K if you absolutely feel you must, but I will more than likely not grant adherence. Instead, I would greatly prefer you argue and clash on the given topic and prove to me that you are the superior debater, regardless of your personal feelings towards the resolution presented.   Counterplans: I am fine with and enjoy a good counterplan so long as it is mutually exclusive. Opp, please ensure that your CP does not uphold the resolution, as you would simply be giving me more reasons to vote gov.

Jacob Witt - NU

n/a

Jacob Sunshine - DU

n/a

Jeremy Greer - Claremont

n/a

John Schultz - Alaska

n/a

Johnny Zhang - UCLA

n/a

Julian Plaza - CC

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Katerina Andreyevna - DU

n/a

Kevin Covarrubias - Claremont

n/a

Kim Garcia - UCLA

n/a

Kylee Hawthorne - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

LeaDan Yee - HPU

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono - Los Medanos

~~Judging Philosophy: M. Arcidiacono Affiliation: Los Medanos College Years Judging: 3.5 Rounds Judged: 80-100 (rough estimate) Background of the Critic: I competed in Parliamentary Debate while attending California State University, East Bay. I have been coaching parliamentary debate since Spring 2011 at the Community College Level. This year I have judged approximately 30-45 rounds of parliamentary debate (I don’t keep track, this is a rough estimate based on the number of tournament my team has attended). Both of my degrees are in Communication/Speech Communication with an emphasis in Interpersonal Communication, which may or may not matter much in the round, but information for you nonetheless. On Decision-Making: I attempt to be as much of a “tabula rasa” judge as possible. I do NOT like to bring my background knowledge on a topic into the round. If I know that what you are saying is factually untrue, and the other team does NOT call you on it, I will let it happen (even if I don’t like that you’re not presenting factual information) because I try to also be a “non-interventionist” judge. Occasionally, I will have to do work for both teams, and if that happens I am a) not happy about it and b) probably going to put in my own viewpoint and background knowledge into making the decision and no one wants that. Tell me where to vote, tell me how to vote and tell me why to vote there. I do not want to have to do work for anyone in the round. I love CLEAR impact calculus in the Rebuttals. If I am weighing the round on N/B you want to make sure you’ve shown me how your AD’s/DA’s tie back to the weighing mechanism and how your impacts clearly outweigh your opponents impacts on Timeframe, Probability, and Magnitude. Of these, I tend to look at the order of importance in the following manner: Probability (if it’s not probable that your impact will actually happen, I won’t vote for it over another impact that probably will), Timeframe (if the impact occurs sooner than your opponents that matters, we live in the here and now, not the far, far away distant future), and then Magnitude. Speaking of Magnitude of your impacts, let me take a second to get on my soapbox: It really bothers me when teams try and impact out to Dehumanization and there is NO legitimate link to Dehumanization and/or they use the term Dehumanization wrong. Seriously, dehumanization does not occur because I didn’t get to cast a vote one time, or I didn’t get a new laptop. Dehumanization is a process that occurs over time via repeated acts against your humanity. I like when teams run actual Dehumanization arguments, not arguments that just magically lead to Dehumanization. On whether or not Dehumanization is worse than Death as an impact: You had better convince me with clear examples that one is worse than the other because you’re asking me to pick from the lesser of two evils here. On Stock Issues/On-Case Arguments: It is extremely important to me as a critic that as an Aff team you uphold The Burden of Proof in the round and meet your Prima Facia Burden. It’s actually a big pet peeve of mine when Aff teams just jump into the Plan Text without providing ANY type of Background to the round. I understand that you can provide the Background points in the Uniqueness of your Advantages, but I personally do not like having to wait that long to know what’s going on in the SQ that’s so bad that you are advocating for change. The sooner the better. I want to have clear cut Solvency articulated following the Plan Text as well. If you’re Plan doesn’t solve the problems in the SQ then I will vote on the Solvency Press. I like hearing Solvency Press arguments, however, if the Aff can convince me that they have Risk of Solvency of their Harms I will not vote on the Solvency Press. That “Risk” is a big factor for me. If there is even a 1% chance they can solve the Harms I will throw out the Solvency Press argument. I want warrants from both sides here though. FIAT: I believe that the Aff team does have the power of FIAT in the round—to an extent. Yes, you can FIAT that the Plan will happen, but I also believe that there are times and resolutions where the Opp team can argue, successfully, that FIAT is illusory. These arguments are AWESOME to listen to when they are run well. If you want to try it out, I’m your judge. On Counter Plans: I like Counter Plan argumentation. I believe that Opp teams can run Counter Plans and win the round. Just make sure that you have convinced me, without a doubt that your Counter Plan and the Plan are Mutually Exclusive and specify HOW the Aff cannot PERM your Counter Plan. One of the biggest things I want to see here once you have convinced me that the Counter Plan cannot be Perm’d is how the Counter Plan de-links out the Dis-Advantage AND provides an Advantage that the Plan cannot link to. Aff teams: If you want to PERM the Counter Plan I need to have clear cut argumentation on why you can do both and not be Extra-Topical. The Counter Plan should NOT be topical, but you can always run a Plan Inclusive Coutner Plan. Conditional/Provisional Counter Plans are fine to run, but the Leader of the Opposition needs to make that known ASAP when running the Counter Plan. On Procedurals: 1) The Tricot: I firmly believe that there are three (3) types of debate and that each type of debate is relevant and provide us with educational value. I will vote on a Trichot argument as long as it is a) warranted and b) ran well. Aff teams: If you want to win a Trichot argument you need to convince me without a doubt that debating the topic through a different resolution type is BETTER than the originally intended resolution. This argument is an aprioi issue for me as a judge. 2) The “T”: I used to really dislike the “T” because so many Opp teams ran it improperly and were too vague. That being said, I don’t mind the “T” when it is ran properly and you clearly lay out your Standards and Voters and provide specific reasons to warrant your Standard/Voter. If you are claiming “ground loss” or “loss of education” you need to tell me exactly what ground you lost and/or what education you specifically lost. Vague arguments here will NOT work in your favor. Aff teams: I love when you know you’re topical and you knock out the “T” and offer me a Reverse Voter. I love the Reverse Voter and I will vote for the Aff if they run this Voter well.  It’s highly under-utilized. I will vote on the “T” as an apriori issue. 3) The “K”: If you want to run a “K” in the round then by all means, do so; just make sure you have the theoretical framework clearly articulated. Do NOT assume I have a background in the theoretical framework, even if I do, I will NOT inject my personal background knowledge into the round. That being said, if you use a theory I know well you want to get it right. I am very interested in hearing Critical/Cultural Arguments and Gender/Feminist Arguments. Sidebar: Language “K’s” are awesome. I think there are some definite times where teams use offensive terms in rounds and I appreciate when a language critique is ran. If you run this well, I will vote for you. On that note: If you refer to people in ways that are deemed “offensive” or “politically incorrect” I will dock your Speaker Points. On Points of Information/Order: 1) You can call as many POI’s as you want and you can take as many as you want. My one pet peeve (and this will hurt your Speaker Points) is when you say, “I’ll take you at the end” and then don’t. That’s rude. If you won’t have time for it, let them know right away. If you have SO much information to get through that you don’t have time, you might not be using the right time management skills in the round. 2) Let’s all make sure that POO’s are handled correctly. I will rule as often as a possible without holding up the round. If I rule “under consideration” that means you should proceed with caution when it comes to your argument. You can call as many POO’s as you want in the Rebuttals—it’s your debate to win, or lose. On Structure/Sign Posting/Roadmaps: Clear structure is very important in the round—especially if you are trying to bring up the rate of delivery in the round. I like a nice, concise roadmap IF you are going to follow it and if you don’t follow it that’s frustrating so you had better signpost. If you are going to follow the EXACT same order as the speaker before you then you can just say, “Same Order” and save us all some time. I will not time your roadmap, but don’t think that’s an excuse to squeeze extra prep time. You get 30seconds maximum. On Speed/Spreading/Partner Prompting/General Delivery: I am NOT a fan of spread speaking in parliamentary debate. I will give you one warning if your speaking rate has gone past my threshold and after that I will stop flowing. Debate is a speaking performance and thus, should be presented in a way that a majority of people (i.e. non-debaters) can follow and spread speaking does not do this. Speed as an exclusionary tool is also frowned upon. If the other team asks you to be “clear” or “slow” more than twice you need to adapt to that and/or risk being labeled as “exclusionary,” and potentially losing my ballot. Note: If I stop flowing in the round because of excessive speed your ballot is in trouble. I do not mind if you prompt your partner. Just remember, that if you want it to get on my flow it needs to come out of the speaker’s mouth. I DO mind if you sit while speaking. This is a performance and speaking activity and that requires standing and speaking. If you choose to sit down and speak that might hurt your Speaker Points. Let’s all remember this is an educational activity and is essentially a GAME. Yes, there are big awards involved, but that is not a reason to be rude to each other in the round or overtly aggressive. There’s no need for big, over the top theatrics or yelling in the round. Foot stamping, hitting the lectern, etc. are frowned upon. Let’s keep it civil and as polite as possible. On Speaker Points: I usually give out points in the 25-28 range when speakers are above average. I try to not score you lower than a 21, but that has happened before. Ways to earn a score lower than 25: You have excessive filler words (uh, um, like, but, etc.), you are rude to the other team in the round, you are rude to me in the round, you disrespect speed warnings, your phone goes off (and it’s not your timer). If you want to score higher than a 28: You need to be an exceptionally strong speaker with clear articulation, assertiveness, politeness, and limited to no filler words. I like to give out scores higher than 28 when they are earned so give me a reason to award you a 29 or 30! Lastly: Have fun. Debate should be fun. If debate isn’t fun, you aren’t doing it right. If you want to get me to laugh in the round or earn some brownie points, throw in a couple solid references from the movie, “Mean Girls.”

Mark Gibson - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Martha Zavala Perez - Pepperdine

Matt Khachadoorian - Cal Poly SLO

Megan Towles - DU

n/a

Meredith Tolleson - DU

n/a

Michael Stewart - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Michaeline Anderson - La Verne

n/a

Mike DeWitt - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Mumin Khan - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Nandeet Mehta - UCLA

n/a

Nick McGrail - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Nick Mauer - Carroll

n/a

Nicole Paulsen - DU

n/a

Niko Arguelles - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Noha Ayoub - USC

n/a

Pastor Arroyo - Claremont

n/a

Rhydian Morgan - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Rob Ruiz - La Verne

n/a

Ryan Curtin - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Ryan Hund - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Sam French - Cal Poly SLO

n/a

Samantha Strong - USC

n/a

Selene Figueroa - DU

n/a

Shane Flanagin - UCLA

Name: Shane Flanagin   School Affiliation: University of California, Los Angeles   Education: B.A. in Political Science (American Politics and International Relations concentration), currently pursuing my Master’s in International Relations with an emphasis on politics in the Middle East (If you want to hear the details, ask; otherwise I’ll spare you the details).   Background: Competed for UCLA in BP/World’s style debate in college, with some Parli experience in high school. I currently work as the assistant coach for the UCLA Debate Union.   NPDA Judging Philosophy   General Philosophy: First and foremost, I prefer to think of myself as a communication-style judge, that is to say that I prefer clear, thoughtful, well-articulated arguments over how many lines of argumentation you can bring to bear. That being said, speed can be a problem for me with some speakers. I enjoy creativity in debate and believe that the rush for greater and greater speed by teams is killing it. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request.   Put time into your lines of argumentation and argue them persuasively, and you’ll be fine; try to simply overwhelm the other team with arguments and you’ll likely not like my ballot.   Specific Points:   - Not a fan of T, run it if you absolutely must; but I would greatly prefer that you argue the case in front of you and trust that I will realize whether a team has strayed wildly off topic. That being said, if you are the first speaker, make sure you present a reasonable interpretation of the motion, or you will lose. Use your best judgment and try to leave equitable ground on both sides of the case.   - CP’s are fine as long as they are significantly distinct and exclusive of the Affirmative case.   - 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 to blippy high magnitude assertions.   - Questions: --I still believe that you must take one question in each constructive   - Etiquette: Be respectful, no excuses. Feel free to be passionate, but don’t attack or bully a fellow debater. This includes remarks or non-verbals during another speaker’s time.   Evaluating Rounds: Policy maker/ Net benefits, unless instructed otherwise in a compelling fashion by a team. I love weighing mechanisms, but will entertain generally any argument/strategy in the context of the round.   Finally, don’t shorthand your arguments, or make me do your work for you (i.e., explain your sources/theories/etc. as if to a layperson and not a policy expert). As well, I only count complete arguments, if you leave out the warrant or link or impact,  it won’t weigh heavily, if at all, in my decision.

Steve Johnson - Alaska

n/a

Tamar Miot - La Verne

n/a

Tina Sayegh - USC

n/a

2016 USU Western Region Championship