FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Becca McDonnell - Sac State

n/a

Alexis Litzky - Chabot College

n/a

Ashley Curry - Los Medanos

Avesta Sabetian - San Jose State

Ben Griswold - Los Medanos

Constance Gordon - Chabot College

n/a

Cynthia Shepherd - Los Medanos

Darion Johnston - Chico

Denzel King - Los Medanos

Drew Golsch - Sac State

n/a

Greg Kling - DVC

Hal Sanford - SRJC

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, it's length  does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                                               What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.                                                                                                                                            AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  Be sure your interpretation of the resolution gives ground to the negative. In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).  In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them. NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.  Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable. In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it)are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other.  What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really? What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are: 1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot.  Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I'll really resist.  Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  They also should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad. Critiques:  Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that  "we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or  Sterling, I might buy it.  They're eloquentus-maximus.  Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?     SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request. SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also. JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.  Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together." TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.

Hans Craycraft - CCC

My judging philosophy is simple and founded upon Aristotle’s axiom that there are only two parts to a speech-----you make a statement and then you prove it.  I want to know what the speakers believe and why they believe it. I expect the speakers to be clear, concise and eloquent. I look for claims to be supported by evidence and that evidence to be evaluated by its quality. This applies not only to the primary claim, but also to secondary claims. I do not look favorably upon claims made in passing, that I am expected to accept without adequately linked evidence.  I do not expect the speakers to be unbiased, but I do expect them to be reasonable, rational, credible and passionate. I place a lot of value on the quality of evidence, structure and the reasonableness of the inference drawn from that evidence. I look for teams to provide quality analysis, reasoning, organization, and delivery. I prefer that teams carefully and clearly label the various elements of their case.  I also look for strong refutation on opposing points. I will normally give the win to the team that most skillfully blends these various elements into a coherent whole and thereby displays power, consistency and reasonability in their advocacy.

Katrina Swanson - San Jose State

Marie Arcidiacono - CCC

Mary Anne Sunseri - San Jose State

I like clear arguments and good, solid, logical  thought processes.  I try my very best to leave my biases out of the round and will likely vote on just what happens in the round. I will not vote on issues not presented by the students. I appreciate good delivery, the use of wit and well mannered competitors. I like all forms of argumentation as long as they are presented clearly, warranted and supported logically. I expect courtesy and respect from and for all in the round (competitors, gallery, etc). It is not okay to speak loudly to your teammate while the other team has the floor; nor is it okay to speak for your teammate.

Matt Gach - Chico

Nathan Steele - CCSF

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I aim to subdue my bias and objectively adjudicate rounds, voting for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever and dynamic arguments. Debaters should provide/contest criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters? Be respectful of your opponents at all times. You can be a little snarky but do not make it personal. Attack the arguments and behaviors in the round rather than the people. Avoid obnoxious nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Heckling is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. I will listen to you throughout the round, and I hope you will continue to listen to each other. What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Don't lie. Convince me of how I should evaluate the debate and what the affirmative or negative team must do to win my ballot. I'm capable of believing any well-reasoned and supported claim, but I favor cogent, criteria-based arguments that are ultimately weighed against other issues in the round. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? The debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). Delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, pauses, and vocal variety. Delivery style may affect speaker points but will not factor into a decision. Points of order can be called when rules are broken; I will stop time and hear briefly from the opposing side before ruling.

Patrick Moe - DVC

You should argue whatever you want, but never assume I know why you are arguing it until you tell me why.  Continuously answer the question: "So what?!"   The longer I do this the less impressed I am by debate jargon.  After competing in and coaching both high school and college forensics (including 7 years as the Director of Forensics at DVC), I speak debate fluently, but I very much prefer English.  Telling me, "Jargon, jargon, jagon therefore I win" rarely actually wins my ballot.  Instead what wins my ballot is an understanding of debate with examples, precedent, narrative, delivery, and a sense of humor. I fully understand and appreciate line by line refutation, but in rebuttals I very much prefer story-telling and persuasion over technocratic debate.  Also in rebuttals when it comes to impact calculus I am much more likely to be swayed by probabilty over magnitude than I am magnitude over probability.  Angry and yelling debate almost never wins my ballot.   I dislike speed--I'd prefer if you talked to me like a human being rather than like a flowing robot. Most important, have fun and learn.  If you are not having fun and learning, stop giving up your weekends to do this.

Ryan Gallagher - San Jose State

Ryan Guy - Butte

Guy, Ryan<o:p></o:p> California State University, Chico<o:p></o:p> Butte College<o:p></o:p> Me:   <ul> <li> Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.<o:p></o:p></li> <li>  Third year coaching speech and debate at Chico State<o:p></o:p></li> <li> First year coaching debate at Butte College<o:p></o:p></li> <li> I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, and Public Speaking</li> </ul>   The Basics:<o:p></o:p> <ul> <li> Debate is a game.  Play it well.<o:p></o:p></li> <li>  I’m fine with speed in NFA-LD and Parli.<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.<o:p></o:p></li> <li> I like the K.  Do it well or I will be annoyed. <o:p></o:p></li> </ul>  o   Preference for assumption Ks over Language Ks<o:p></o:p> <ul> <li> I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Tell me why you win.<o:p></o:p></li> </ul> General  Approach to Judging:<o:p></o:p> I really enjoy good clash in the round.  I want you to directly tear into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). From there you need to make your case to me. What arguments stand and what am I really voting on.  If at the end of the round I'm looking at a mess of untouched abandoned arguments you all have epic failed.<o:p></o:p> Organization is very important to me. Please road map and tell me where you are going. I can deal with you bouncing around—if necessary—but please let me know where we are headed and where we are at. Clever tag-lines help too. As a rule I do not time road maps.<o:p></o:p> I like to see humor and wit in rounds. This does not mean you can/should be nasty or mean to each other. Avoid personal attacks unless there is clearly a spirit of joking goodwill surrounding them. If someone gets nasty with you, stay classy and trust me to punish them for it. <o:p></o:p> If the tournament prefers that we not give oral critiques before the ballot has been turned in I won't. If that is not the case I will as long as we are running on schedule. I'm always happy to discuss the round at some time during the tournament.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Specifics:<o:p></o:p> Speaker Points:   Other than a couple off the wall occurrences my range tends to fall in the 25-30 range.  If you do the things in my “General  Approach to Judging” section your speaks will be higher.<o:p></o:p> Topicality: Hey Aff…be  topical.  T debates are awesome if you can break free of the boring generic T debates we seem to hear in every round. I’m cool with the “test of the aff” approach but please be clever. I’ll vote on T just make sure you have all the components .  I’m unlikely to vote on an RVI on T but it is not completely impossible.<o:p></o:p> Critiques: I like me some critical theory…that being said I have not read every author out there and you should not assume anyone in the round has.  Make sure you thoroughly explain your argument.  Educate us as you persuade.  Make sure your alternative solves for the impacts of the K.  <o:p></o:p> So far in my time as a coach/judge I have not seen an Aff team run critical arguments well.  If you think you are the team to show me how it’s done I’m down to listen.  Just make sure you run them  in a way that are still topical.<o:p></o:p> Weighing: Please tell me why you are winning.  Point to the impact level of the debate.  Tell me where to look on my flow.  I like clear voters in the rebuttals. The ink on my flow (or pixels if I’m in a laptop mood) is your evidence. Why did you debate better in this round.  Side Note: In NPDA  I hate when the LOR just repeats what the MO just said.  I got it the first time…why are you winning?<o:p></o:p> Speed:  I think in general speed is good for debate.  That being said; make sure you are clear, organized and are still making good persuasive arguments.  If you can’t do that and go fast slow down.  If someone calls clear…please do so.  Side Note on NFA-LD: I get that there is the anti-speed rule that everyone ignores. If you are speaking at a rate a trained debater and judge can comprehend I think you meet the spirit of the rule.  If speed becomes a problem in the round just call “clear.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>

Stephen Ban - Butte

Taureanna Shimp - Chico

Theresa Perry - Chico

Tony Bernacchi - DVC

Please run whatever you want! I judge based on what happened in the round, but I am not going to waste a bunch of my time defining what should be run in front of me.  So bring it! I was a policy debater for 4 years so I am going to be able to keep up with your 'speed'........HOWEVER, I dont really like that parli-debaters spread as if they are in policy debate.  If spreading is a core strategy of yours you should probably add evidence to your speech and join CEDA. Oh.......impact analysis/voting calculous is appreciated. Finally, be respectful of one anotherin the round. If you are overly rude, consistently interupting your partner, or try to influence my decision with obnoxious facial expressions and non-verbals......DON'T! a) it wont work, and b) it will reflect in your speaker points.(negatively) debate well

Tyler Ashton - Sac State

n/a

2012 NCFA Debate Camp