Judge Philosophies

Abigail Watkins - El Camino

<p>Experience: I competed for two years at El Camino College, where I competed at both community college circuit tournaments as well as NPDA/NPTE, and I have been coaching at El Camino for two years.</p> <p>IMPORTANT: If you only take one thing away from my judging philosophy, remember this: please do not read arguments about animal abuse/violence against animals/animal death in front of me. You are one hundred percent guaranteed to give me a panic attack. This is an unfortunate reality of my mental health and something I would happily change if I could. If you are wondering whether or not an argument might delve into this territory, I beg you to exercise caution!</p> <p>Otherwise:</p> <p>SPEED: I am somewhat out of practice flowing absolute top speed so if you&rsquo;re super fast you might want to slow down a bit for me, but overall I should be fine flowing most people&rsquo;s spread, especially on a laptop. I have terrible listening comprehension so if your spread isn&rsquo;t super clear, you definitely want to slow down just to make sure that I understand you.</p> <p>FRAMEWORK: I will default to a net benefits paradigm unless otherwise instructed. I tend to respond best to framework arguments with clear real world warrants to back up your claims.</p> <p>THEORY: I love theory. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise instructed. Please don&rsquo;t read RVIs in front of me unless the round has entered some weird parallel universe and you really, REALLY think that they&rsquo;re justified.</p> <p>KRITIKS: I like the kritik and I think it can be a valuable tool in the debate. You should probably assume that I don&rsquo;t know anything about the literature. If all things are equal and you&rsquo;re wondering whether or not to go for a DA/CP round or a K round, you might be better off going for a more &ldquo;straight up&rdquo; style in front of me, but I am not predisposed against the K in the slightest.</p> <p>IDENTITY ARGS: I might not be your best judge for this; I feel like they are asking me to insert myself into the round as a judge in a way that I don&rsquo;t always feel comfortable doing. But if this is your strategy in competition, I will do my best to judge these arguments as I would any other. I have certainly voted for them in the past.</p> <p>CONDITIONALITY: I default to unconditionality unless otherwise instructed and I tend to be receptive to arguments that unconditionality is a superior paradigm, but ultimately...I don&rsquo;t care that much.</p> <p>MISC: Economics make little to no sense to me so if it&rsquo;s going to be an econ round...read Marx or be very clear in defining your terms, and don&#39;t rely on me to gutcheck your opponents because it&#39;s just not going to happen. I have horrible nonverbals, and I am sorry about that. It&rsquo;s just how my face is. I understand that when you&rsquo;re going fast, it&rsquo;s easy for your volume level to pick up as well, but I am very noise sensitive so if you can try your best not to yell at me I will appreciate it. Have fun? Have fun.</p>


Alejandro Rivera - El Camino


Alex Zison - IVC


Andrew Escalante - El Camino


April Griffin - Cerritos College


Arlene Galarza - Azusa

<p><strong>Background</strong>: I competed in parliamentary debate and NFA-LD for three years in college. This is &nbsp;my first year helping to coach in parliamentary debate and LD. I have judged around 70 or so rounds this year.</p> <p><strong>Decision Making:</strong>&nbsp;I do not have a strict and set decision making philosophy. Stock-Issue is a very strong way to present a case in parliamentary debate, but for the most part I try to be very open and wait for you to tell me how you are going to run the round.</p> <p><strong>Presentation/communication skills</strong>: Debaters should be dressed in business attire, if you&rsquo;re not, I will-unconsciously- take you less seriously. In this past year, I have spent more time with the Speech side of Forensics and I do tend to pay more attention to the way you speak and overall presentation. Although the way you speck is not as important as what you say, it does hold some weight on my ballot.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>In Round</strong>: Competitors should be polite and respectful of one another. Being condescending, rude, or laughing at your&nbsp;opponents-&nbsp;no matter how ridiculous their arguments&nbsp;may seem or are- is not okay! This semester, I have dropped a team for this kind of behavior.</p> <p>&nbsp;If you are the second speaker, you need to extend across your partners responses and arguments or else they are dropped arguments. Arguments should all be impacted to a terminal impact.&nbsp;Please<strong>, always</strong>&nbsp;call points of order in the last speeches or I will flow them.</p> <p>Please time each other, just to make sure everyone stays honest.</p> <p>I like two world scenarios and 2-4 clear voting issues. I don&rsquo;t time road maps.<strong> Organization and sign posting</strong>&nbsp;is key to winning. Tell me exactly where to flow your argument and responses, or else I will just quickly guess and put it anywhere, which is not good.</p> <p><strong>Procedurals:</strong>&nbsp;I will vote on Topicality and other procedurals (tricot, vagueness press)&nbsp;but you need to show articulated abuse. You show articulate abuse by running your Disadvantages and then having the Aff de-link them. I do not like RV&#39;s, I think it is the neg&rsquo;s ground to run theory arguments.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;I tend not to vote for&nbsp;topical counterplans&nbsp;in parli, but I will listen to all arguments.&nbsp;If you are planning to run a counter plan don&rsquo;t run it in the last 30&nbsp;seconds of your speech. An effective strategy for running a counter plan is by first running a disadvantage that the Aff bites and that your plan doesn&rsquo;t, and additionally, counter plan must solve for the entire Aff case. You should take any POI&rsquo;s after the counter plantext is read.</p> <p>I also, tend to dislike&nbsp;K&rsquo;s because, usually I hear K&#39;s that&nbsp;are just non -unique disadvantages, and they just do not offer any real world&nbsp;solvency.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong><strong>&nbsp;</strong>Don&#39;t do it!&nbsp;Debate is a fundamentally an educational activity, therefore, everyone in the round should be able to understand all of your well-structured arguments. &nbsp;Additionally, if your opponents &ldquo;clear you&rdquo; or ask you to &ldquo;slow down&rdquo; and you don&rsquo;t &ndash; I will be upset and&nbsp;drop you! Time management is important, if it is a round with few arguments and you feel like you have effectively covered everything you don&rsquo;t need to spend 5 minutes just repeating your arguments. But, if you need the time, please use it!</p> <p>Ultimately, I will try to keep my biases and prejudices away from the round and I will listen to any and all arguments. Lastly, have fun and actually being funny is always a good thing!</p>


Bryan Malinis - Cerritos College

<p><strong>Content: </strong>As a judge, I am looking for the team that provides the strongest, most logical arguments in the round. Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate correctly. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. In parliamentary debate, I expect you to articulate abuse and points of order.</p> <p><strong style="line-height:1.6em">Topicality: </strong><span style="line-height:1.6em">I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-justified by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. Once you have run the T, you enhance your chances of picking up my ballot by still spending time arguing against the case presented by the government. If you spend the entire LOC running only topicality, I will assume that you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to defend against faulty arguments (I also feel like you are wasting my time on one single argument). So, do not assume that I will vote for you purely on your topicality. &nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong style="line-height:1.6em">Kritiks:</strong><span style="line-height:1.6em"> I am not a fan of these, so tread carefully. I will not immediately drop you for using a K, but these arguments must be well-justified and clearly articulated. Use common sense here.</span></p> <p><strong style="line-height:1.6em">Delivery: </strong><span style="line-height:1.6em">Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am fine with partner-to-partner communication; however, I will only flow what the present speaker says. Please keep audible P2P communication to a minimum while an opponent is speaking: excessive talking hinders my ability to truly focus on the present speaker.</span></p> <p><strong style="line-height:1.6em">Expectation of Decorum: </strong><span style="line-height:1.6em">Debaters are expected to perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. &nbsp;</span></p>


Cara Holmes - OCC


Collette Blumer - Fullerton Col


Dana-Jean Smith - OCC

<p>~~The first affirmative speaker must present a coherent case that addresses the stock issues of the particular debate. The first affirmative speaker must also provide a case that overcomes their prima facie burden and is topical for me to consider further argumentation. The first negative speaker&rsquo;s job is to hold the affirmative accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities structuring a debate. Next, I do take kritiks and procedurals into consideration if they are well-structured and well-justified. Competitors must make both aprioi issues if they would like me to look at implications of reasoning or impacts of violating rules prior to the case when making a decision. Indeed, parliamentary debate resolutions are claims of fact, value, OR policy. Furthermore, I only take developed arguments into consideration. Claims must be backed by reasoning and evidence. Claims must also be linked to the plan, resolution, and or value of a debate. Lastly, speakers should not spread as strategy for decreasing their opponents&rsquo; comprehension of their case. While I can keep up with a fast rate of delivery, speakers must respect their opponents&rsquo; request to clear and or repeat information. If a speaker decides to speed, he or she must provide internal summaries in a normal/conversational rate of delivery.&nbsp;</p>


Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col


Dymond Galvan - CBU


Francesca Bishop - El Camino

<p>I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.&nbsp;There are&nbsp;lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but&nbsp;I try not&nbsp;to bring them into the round.&nbsp;Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you&nbsp;CAN lose a round if you drop one little argument; if you drop&nbsp;a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is&nbsp;if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts.&nbsp;I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have &quot;won.&quot;&nbsp; A second&nbsp;exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so&nbsp;please don&#39;t guess or make stuff up.&nbsp;</p> <p>Because I try to base my decision based only on arguments&nbsp;that are made&nbsp;in the round,&nbsp;I don&#39;t assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don&#39;t expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it&#39;s bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad.&nbsp;Likewise, you don&#39;t have to run only liberal&nbsp;positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don&#39;t assume you believe them or care if they are &quot;true.&quot;&nbsp;In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.</p>


Jessica Rush - CBU


Josh Kammert - Azusa

<p><strong>Background</strong><br /> I have coached for five years; formats have included Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and IPDA. I competed for four years prior to that in LD, Parli, and one tournament of CEDA. This year I have judged something like 60 rounds. None of this should really matter to you except to clarify that, yes, I am intimately familiar with the rules of debate.</p> <p><strong>Approach to Decision-Making</strong><br /> <em>General Concepts</em><br /> I have a niceness paradigm; this means I can -and will- drop someone for being a jerk to their opponent. Obviously ad hominem is a definitively poor choice, but I&#39;m looking for enlightening discussion not destructive manipulation -and there is a difference; in fact, if I&#39;m your judge, just be as polite as you can to your opponents and the topic; I&#39;m your audience, adapt to me. I loathe speed; I find it detrimental to an activity that is supposed to be focused on effective communication when there is literally no other moment in life where speaking at 250+ words per minute will be of benefit (it will, as a matter of fact be of great detriment since people will just tune you out). For me, Debate is a classroom, not a game; it is meant for education on a topic, not for being manipulative to achieve a win. Yes, I know I just annoyed 85% of you, I&#39;m good with that. :)</p> <p><em>Argument Specifics</em><br /> As far as arguments go: I will buy just about anything, though I have yet to hear a Kritik that was not a non-unique DA in disguise, and that&#39;s bad. Don&#39;t run non-unique DA&#39;s&nbsp;and call them K&#39;s, I won&#39;t buy that.&nbsp;I&#39;d also like to echo the words of Gary Ribold when he says, &quot;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).&quot; Oh and here&#39;s a big one: <strong>NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS</strong>; if you are both arguing to do as the resolution says, then I am only left to vote to affirm which means the Neg may have won the debate but the ballot will go to the Aff because the Neg convinced me to vote for the resolution to pass!</p> <p>I love Stock-Issue Debate and On-Topic Debate, Meta-Debate is boring. That said, if you truly feel you&#39;re being abused, feel free to run procedurals, but there had better be articulated abuse.<br /> <br /> My goal in every round of debate is twofold: Have Fun, and Learn Something. Do that while keeping to the above recommendations, and we&#39;ll get along famously.</p>


Kayla Graney - IVC


Kevin Nguyen - OCC


Matt Porter - Cerritos College


Michael Marse - CBU

<p>I am a traditional debate theorist. &nbsp;I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years. &nbsp;I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10&nbsp;years.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument. &nbsp;</p> <p>Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus. &nbsp;If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who &quot;wins&quot; the debate.</p> <p>Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all. &nbsp;It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others. &nbsp;Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed. &nbsp;Asking a question in the round like, &quot;Do you mind speed?&quot; in such a way as to really ask, &quot;Are you going to be a stupid judge?&quot; is going to annoy me. &nbsp;The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds. &nbsp;Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly. &nbsp;The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better. &nbsp;Have bright lines, don&#39;t kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech. &nbsp;Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances. &nbsp;My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus. &nbsp;I don&#39;t believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation.</p> <p>Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it&#39;s a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win.</p> <p>Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric. &nbsp;If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose. &nbsp;Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc. &nbsp;If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>The proper metaphor for debate is not &quot;a game&quot;, but is instead &quot;a laboratory&quot;. &nbsp;The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there. &nbsp;We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries. &nbsp;We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments. &nbsp;The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>


Nichole Barta - OCC

<p>This judge has a communication background and looks for&nbsp;solid, well-explained arguments.&nbsp; Not&nbsp; a fan of speed or jargon.</p>


Peter Doesburg - El Camino


Scott Tuggle - IVC


Steve Robertson - Cerritos College


Victor Rose - CBU

<p>Kritik &ndash; I&rsquo;ll listen and give reasonable ground, but the framework and alternative need to be incredibly solid otherwise I just hear complaints that are unstructured without a reason to vote, I believe in their legitimacy and value but often times execution is lacking</p> <p>Topicality &ndash; Excellent, linguistic challenges offer new perspectives</p> <p>D/A &ndash; Impact calculus and two world alternatives in the last rebuttals are the most persuasive types of policy/value arguments</p> <p>Speed &ndash; Definitely get through your speeches and finish your arguments, if your opponents or myself have trouble following you that is no bueno, yes opposition and myself will clear you</p> <p>Sportsmanship &ndash; We&rsquo;re all here as members of the same community, be polite, enjoy the tournament, and create a positive environment that fosters education</p>


William Neesen - IVC

<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Bill Neesen<br /> Cal. State Long Beach &amp; Irvine Valley College<br /> <br /> Parli Debates judged this year: 40+<br /> Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+<br /> Years Judging Debate: 15<br /> Years Competed in Debate: 7<br /> What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton<br /> <br /> Making Decisions: &#39;My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.&#39;<br /> <br /> Decision-making Approach: &#39;I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. &#39;<br /> <br /> Assessing Arguments: &#39;I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.&#39;<br /> <br /> Presentational Aspects: &#39;Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.&#39;<br /> <br /> Strong Viewpoints: &#39;No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.&#39;<br /> <br /> Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: &#39;I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.&#39;<br /> <br /> Other Items to Note: &#39;I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. &#39;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><br /> &nbsp;</p>


Willie Washington - IVC