FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Albert Alatorre - Long Beach

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

n/a

Anasheh Gharabighi - Moorpark

n/a

Anastasia Tatum - CSUF

n/a

Andrea Adams - SMC

The short version: It’s your time; you do what you want. I competed in both parli and policy. I have judged a substantial number of rounds this year but have not kept count. I believe debate is what you make it and I will follow whatever guidelines you tell me to in-round. But unless told otherwise, I default to using the flow as my basis of judging. Basically, this means in-round discourse with slight preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)  As long as I can understand you, I will flow you.  I’m fine with speed although I am also open to speed Ks. (See the first line.) On case arguments are as important as you tell me they are unless argued otherwise by the other side. (See the first line) Kritiks and critical affs are fun and interesting, please run them. That said, I won’t prefer them over other arguments and my first line still trumps everything. I flow alt and alt solvency on two separate pages (it keeps the perm and solvency debates separate) so please pause between the two so I have time to switch to a new page. Projects and performances- also fun and interesting but I want a clear role of the judge/role of the ballot and/or weighing mechanism. Not saying you will necessarily lose if you don’t provide me one but it helps me from feeling lost. That said, for projects and performances, my default might shift from strictly the flow towards a more ‘being present’ approach unless told otherwise by either team. Topicality, theory, counterplans, disadvantages, framework, etc, are all fine arguments. Go for offense over defense but I’ll vote on anything. See first line. Perms-They can be a test of mutual compatibility or the perm can become aff advocacy. Debate it out in-round. Please call points of order for new arguments in the rebuttals. If you don’t call it, I will consider it (obviously this doesn’t count for new arguments in the PMR that respond to new things brought up in the MOC speech). I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me. I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

n/a

Ashley Johnson - Biola

Brian Funke - Biola

Brianna Broady - SMC

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Claire Crossman - CSULA

n/a

Cole McLean - SFSU

n/a

Daniel Noriega - CSULA

n/a

Dorri Mang - Long Beach

n/a

Emily Crosby - Concordia

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 Gurham - Grand Canyon

Heidi Fortier - Fullerton Col

n/a

Jabeen Haque - El Camino

Jackson Spencer - LAVC

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Concordia

Jamie Lee Whittington - El Camino

Jay Arntson - PCC

n/a

Jeff Samano - Fullerton Col

Jenna Patronete - Moorpark

n/a

Jessica Kwack - SMC

n/a

Jim Wyman - Moorpark

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

John Parker - Biola

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!

Joseph Laughon - Concordia

" I debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I part time coach parli for CUI. I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though;   - The K Despite my reputation during competition, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about this are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often.  For those who are really into the K, please be topical. Most Ks on the aff can easily be topical. Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it.* Lastly I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change.   *Language Ks I am not super sympathetic on and I will usually buy an apology unless its particularly egregious. Obviously thats up for debate but whatever.    - The Performance No clue what is going on with it. Honestly. In 5 years, I saw it twice. Once was in practice and the other was in a prelim my first year. The prelim we got ourselves waxed and most of the practice round I spent my time rolling my eyes and yelling at Bear.   -DAs. Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.  Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that.   - Counter plans. Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Shockingly, unlike Robear, I am not a fan of philosophical competition.    Impact Calc: If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and then probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa.  I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me.   Theory Most theory debates are fairly boring to me but that won't stop me from voting on it. I am not likely to vote on specs. Topicality: I enjoy good T debates and by good I mean the debate focused on the field contextual nature of the word in contention. Critical Ts I am less sympathetic to.  Condo: I am pretty sympathetic to someone arguing against conditionality however I am not a stickler for it, despite Kevin's best attempts.    -House keeping Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.

Josh Vannoy - Grand Canyon

Joshua Vannoy – Grand Canyon University Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate. General: Debate is a game.  There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make.  I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my second year as a judge. <ul> <li>One question should be answered during each constructive.</li> <li> If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much.</li> <li>Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner.</li> <li>Be friendly!</li> </ul> Theory: Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All standards should be read slowly twice, or I won’t be able to flow it.  I do not need articulated abuse.  Competing interps is my go unless you have something else.  I most likely will not vote for “you must disclose” arguments. Case: If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg.  If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say “poverty” without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you. Performance: So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not “perform” anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place.   I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. The K: When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All K’s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces are missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better).  The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates.   Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K.  I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is, name dropping means nothing to me. Non topical Affirmatives: So if you decide to run a Non topical affirmative I would keep a couple of things in mind when arguing them in front of me. I am not a fan of militarized agency and find it difficult to weigh the debate when it becomes Arguments vs People. I do believe the topic has some importance in the debate, since it arguably is one of the only stable locust that both teams have access to, if you are going to run a non-topical affirmative a discussion of why the topic is problematic/harmful to debate would be needed. If the neg argues that there was a topical version of your affirmative (and its true) it would be pretty easy for me to vote on T. CP Theory: Is condo bad? Probably… Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate) Never run delay. 50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so. Pics are awesome if done well, and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice.  If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision. Permutations: I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 – 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 4 – 8 perms.  If your perm does not solve links to the DA’s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition. Speaker Points: I honestly do not know how I will be with speaker points. When judging high school, I always leaned on the higher side of speaker points, I most likely will keep things in the 27 – 29 range.  Odds are I will not pass out 30s often unless you speak like Richard Ewell or topically find a way to take out Kim Jong-un.

Juan Victorio - El Camino

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kristina Ewing - Moorpark

n/a

Kyle Duffy - Canyons

n/a

Malcolm Gamble - CSUF

n/a

Marissa Semas Cortez - Fullerton Col

n/a

Megan Rogers - Moorpark

n/a

Michael Dvorak - Grand Canyon

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Michael Moran - Rio

Monica Roldan - CSULA

n/a

Nick Bishop - El Camino

Nick Stump - SDSU

Orion Steele - USF

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. I am currently a coach for the University of San Francisco. General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded. I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go: Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse. Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case. Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory. Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously. Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts. Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind. Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you. Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly. FINAL NOTE I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

Pablo Ramirez - SFSU

n/a

Patricia Hughes - Rio

I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate. I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.             When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters. I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.              I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.             I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments. While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Paxton Attridge - CSULA

n/a

Ray Pittman - SUU

n/a

Rebecca Patton - Biola

Rob Loy - SMC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Ryan Skolnick - CLU

I've been involved in forensics for seven years, competing in NPDA and NFA-LD style debate, and serving as an assistant coach at La Reina High School in Thousand Oaks, California. I judge a consistent amount of rounds yearly, so I'm relatively up to date on the what's become popular lately in debate.   Outside the realm of debate, I work as a policy analyst. As such, it's safe to assume that, unless I'm told otherwise, I default to a policymaker mindset in debate. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability, but it's simply the reality of the world that every judge is going to have preconceived notions about the topics and about debate itself. Unless a team does something horribly abusive or runs an argument that the layman knows is absurd, I tend to do a good job with being a blank slate.   Presentation is largely irrelevant to my ballot. Speed is fine. All I ask is that you slow for tags.    Case args are underrated. Turns often go lightly addressed and I treat them as I would any other source of offense on the ballot. Good case debate will steal you a lot of rounds.   I vote on T (and all procedurals, for that matter) and I will vote on it how I'm told (reasonability vs competing interps). In the absence of any argumentation on that front from either side, I do tend to default to reasonability.    My A-strat in Parli on neg was the PIC and in NFA it was the consult counterplan. Stands to reason that I love a good CP debate. "Cheating" and Condo CPs are good, but I will vote them down if Aff wins the theory argument.    I enjoy good K debate (emphasis on good). But bad K debate derails any education that could be gathered from critical discussion, which of course defeats the justification. Lazy alts (Imagine a world without 'insert bad thing here' is a lazy alt, you need to actually solve somewhat), overly generic links, and messy structure all result in this. If you run a K, understand that I'm likely not as well read as you on the material, so please slow for tags and explain how your K functions.   I will vote on Performance Ks with a few caveats. First, I'm a straight, cisgender white dude, so asking me to evaluate ID performance is one of the most literal expressions of white hegemony I can think of in the context of the debate space. Be very mindful of this. Also, your opponent must have access to the ballot. Make sure to lay out, in clear terms, what their access to the debate space is in the context of your K. This is especially important if you are running a performance as the affirmative. Finally, while I do my best to be tabula rasa, I tend to find policy debates, flawed as they may be, more accessible than most performances I've seen. This means I'm very open to "policy good" framework. Again, no judge is without bias, and I find it important to lay my cards on the table.   Please, DO NOT call for a Point of Order. I will always rule it under consideration. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttals myself as the critic. Points of Order are abused on the regular now to disrupt the flow of rebuttals, and I simply grew tired of it.    Finally, it's important to note that at the end of the day, as the critic, my job isn't to impose my will on you all as debaters. My job is to evaluate the debate that takes place in front of me. Everything listed above is functionally irrelevant when a team clearly outdebates the other. If you want to make earning my ballot more likely, I recommend sticking to what I outlined above.

Sachi Pittman - SUU

n/a

Stephanie Mu - PCC

n/a

Tufik Shayeb - Grand Canyon

Victor Cornejo - PCC

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - El Camino

I'm willing to listen to any type of argument you feel the need to present. I think the intellectual freedom the activity encourages is important and hard to find elsewhere. Other than that, It is in your best interest to keep the debate as clear as possible for me on the flow. I flow by hand at times, and on computer by others, in both cases I appreciate knowing where you're going so I don't waste time switching between sheets and inevitably missing an argument. As a favor, I ask that you please tell me how to judge the debate. I hate being left at the end of the round trying to decide which argument outweighs with no one to guide me. This is easily preventable by explaining to me how things should be evaluated via your framework, criteria, voters, or just plain old impact calculus. You should also probably know that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals, but as long as you're clear, you can do what you want. Avoid saying offensive things about historically disadvantaged social groups, and we should be good. Good luck, have fun.

2017 Robert Barbera Collegiate Forensics Invitational Tournament