FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Lamascus - Pepperdine

My forensics experience consists of three years of policy in the high school homeschool league and four years competing for California Baptist University. At CBU I spent most of my time in NFA-LD, Parli, and limited-prep individual events.   I, just like any other critic, come in to the debate round with preconceived notions and biases. The following are relevant biases that you may find useful.   I fundamentally view debate as a learning activity for all involved, including myself as a judge. I think recognizing this as such requires three additional conclusions: 1)    I think it requires us all to recognize me as an incomplete human being. Regrettably, I do not have a brilliant mind that is capable of perfectly evaluating each and every argument in perfect fashion, and I will certainly not always make the “right” decision. It is for this reason that I prefer to view the round as a game of persuasion rather than a verbal, mechanical chess game where “this type of argument always trumps that” because it grants accessibility to individuals like myself who may not have impressive mental calculation abilities. It also functions to humanize the activity and keeps us from approaching the debate as humans striving to become purely logical machines. My incompleteness is realized in the fact that I the judge am learning from you the competitor and, hopefully, you are also learning something from me. I do take my judging very seriously, and I do believe I owe my best efforts to the competitors in every round. 2)    I think we must recognize that I cannot please everyone in every debate round. The binary nature of most formats can potentially make rounds very frustrating where there is no clear winner. This is an extension of my first point in that I recognize I am capable of making (and probably already have made) poor decisions as a judge according to the judging philosophies of others. 3)    Finally, I believe that recognizing debate as a learning activity means that we should not take it so seriously. This is somewhat paradoxical because I also believe that we should take the “learning activity” aspect very seriously. However, I believe this is manifested in our intentional actions to ensure that debate remains an enjoyable, fun experience for all of those involved. This attitude generates a comfortable environment for the thoughtful expression and evaluation of ideas.   Evaluating debate rounds: I tend to prefer evaluating a round through a particular lens, whether it is criteria, frameworks, a priori, etc. I am not married to the policymaker paradigm, but impacts are the easiest way for me to weigh a debate. It will be very hard for you to win a round with solvency presses, but they are an excellent way to make your opponents look like they didn’t do their homework, which I find very effective when paired with some impactful offense or a counterplan.   Speed: I hold two different (potentially conflicting) views on speed in debate. On one hand, I think it is excellent for our mental fortitude and an enjoyable challenge to evaluate arguments that have been given in a speedy manner. I believe that it is a healthy mental exercise and allows some talented individuals to achieve great depth of argumentation on any given subject. On the other hand, I fear that my effectiveness as a critic declines the faster the debate round is. I unfortunately was never one of those talented individuals who could craft deep, quality arguments in fast speech. I also was not especially good at debating against them. Additionally, I recall very well a period of time in my debate career that I felt speed was highly exclusionary, inaccessible, elitist, and frustrating. My best recommendation to debaters who are stuck with me as their critic would be to go ahead and spread in a round if you so desire unless there is a very dense theoretical concept being discussed, such as highly advanced debate or economic theory. I generally will not have a hard time flowing you, but if evaluating the argument requires intense use of my mental faculties I may end up falling behind and your point may not be received as intended. Do keep in mind that I am sympathetic to speed procedurals run after a competitor who feels excluded from the debate is rejected when respectfully requesting slower speaking from their opponents.   Theory: Since I spent most of my time in NFA-LD where I did not have to engage in especially theory-laden debate rounds, my understanding of extremely advanced debate theory may be somewhat incomplete. I am of course interested in continually learning about new frontiers in debate argumentation, but my evaluation of your round may not go quite the direction you were hoping if you lose me in theory packed clash. This is becoming especially evident to me in my understanding of advanced counterplan theory.   What I do not like to see: <ol> <li> I don’t really like it when a team runs a critical position that emphasizes the meaning, power, and effects of language followed by abuse of that power later in the round.</li> <li>I also don’t really like it when a team tells me that fiat is illusory, then proceeds to paste arguments on my flow that assume fiat is real.</li> <li>Outside of the actual debate, I am disturbed, given my admission of my own imperfection earlier in this post, when competitors have little respect for my decision as a judge and challenge/argue with it during my oral critique.</li> <li>I am disappointed by judges that abuse their power as a judge by disrespecting the teams with their words or attitude.</li> <li>Finally, I am appalled when coaches of teams engage in the ludicrous act of verbally disrespecting a judge’s decisions, either publicly or privately. This is inherently disrespectful to the teams, judge, and activity as a whole.</li> </ol>   All of that said, I look forward to judging your debates! My apologies to teams whom I have judged before posting this, it is difficult to argue before a judge when you are unsure of their leanings. Best of luck to you all!

Alex Kramer - De Anza

At  this point in time, I guess I am pretty old-school in my approach to judging Parli debate. I like clear argumentation with warranted claims and well-articulated impacts that are actually logically connected to the argument they support. I am not opposed to theory debates, or topicality, or any other type of argument, although I do think critiques have a very limited place in academic debate, and aren't just another tool in the toolkit. I still hold to the idea that debate is not just a game, but ideally should also be a context for reasonable argumentation about an issue, with at least some attention paid to oratorical skill.

Ana Petero - Solano

Judging Philosophy for Ana Petero, Solano College   I like structure! It is the responsibility of the Government to define the terms reasonably. If not, I will vote on Topicality, though I really would prefer not to have to. Label your arguments and impact them. I detest tag team constructive speeches, that is, when one person is speaking and his/her partner is talking to them and telling them what to say. I don’t particularly care for critiques unless they are warranted. Some like to run critiques because they think it’s cool. Finally, speed is not necessary in Parliamentary debate (so, unless you plan to be an auctioneer or a voice-over at the end of television commercials, don’t talk fast).

Andrea Adams - Ohlone College

n/a

Angela Gregory - Chabot

Cathy Glenn - SMC

Chaz Kelley - Chico

Chelcy Gibbons - Pacific

n/a

Claire White - Los Rios

n/a

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

Daniel Lopez - MJC

Dave Zimny - Los Medanos

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament. JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice. PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points. PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques. DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that: A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed. The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans. The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government. Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.” The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal. PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins. Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!

Emily Sheldon - UNR

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.

Janene Whitesell - Solano

I will listen to any type of argument as long as it is explained and impacted. Speed is an issue for me, hence if you don’t see my pen moving you might want to slow down. I want the participants to break the round down for me. Tell me why your arguments are superior to the others in the round. I do not like T in general but will vote on in round proven abuse.  Overall have a good time parli is supposed to be fun.

Jannese Davidson - Concordia

Jason Ames - Chabot

I believe it is up to you to make strategic decisions on how you perform in round. Thus, you tell me what I’m supposed to judge on.  I believe the round is yours to define and I’ll vote on any argument (T’s, K’s, CP’s, whatever) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive.  If you blip it, I won’t buy it just because it’s on the flow.  Argumentation should be organized to enable me to flow your arguments better. Other things: I prefer that students adhere to the topic given, but I am also open and able to judge critical arguments from both sides of the resolution if applicable and necessary. I’m not a huge fan of speed in either NFA or Parli. I do try to adapt as best as possible, however, but I also don’t want to be a “flow machine”. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can make a good decision. Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. In NFA, I believe that spreading is antithetical to the event. However, I don’t believe you need to be “conversational speed” either. Feel free to talk a bit quickly (as us debaters do). Hit your tags, explain your analysis and we’ll be all good. If you’re going too fast for me, I’ll clear you and if you do that we’ll all be happy at the end of the round. If you don’t, you’ll probably be unhappy. Also in NFA, if at least the tags and sources of your 1AC are not in a public space that is available to all debaters after round 2 of the tournament, I will become more prone to buy predictability arguments from the Negative side and more willing to vote on T in favor of the Neg. (FYI Neg, this doesn’t mean it’s a lock for you if they don’t … but the odds are ever in your favor). Here is the website for you to post your case: <a href="http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/">http://nfaldfilesharing.wikispaces.com/</a> Your rebuttals should be a time for you to advocate your positions.  Enjoy!

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jesse Smith - CCSF

Jim Dobson - LPC

n/a

John Hanecak - DVC

I look forward to a debate which is resolutional, provides ground for both sides, is incredibly well signposted, has plenty of clash, is delivered for a universal audience, contains some taseful wit, and is, in the end, the most persuasive. Like the 'ole 1960/1970's slogan said, "speed kills" when it comes to delivery. A sound final rebuttal also goes a long way. I enjoy policy, fact or value debates and am ready to listen to arguments as to how the language prefers one over the other. In all cases, don't forget the clash.

Josh Ramsey - Pacific

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.

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Kelsey Caldwell - Butte

n/a

Kevin Calderwood - Concordia

New additions to my philosophy this year:   --I like teams that spend a significant amount of time lighting up the case in the 1NC.     --I still think that I err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory, but I have grown tired of the textual versus functional competition debate. I think that the legitimacy of counterplans I tend to dislike (process, delay, anything that changes the nature of fiat) is better resolved through objections specific to the counterplan in question (i.e. delay bad, etc.)   ---I think teams spend too little time on the link story and spend too much time developing their impacts. This isn't to say that I don't think that having a developed impact story is important, but very little of it matters if the extent of your link is "GOP hates the plan, next..."   ---I think that systemic impacts are underutilized, especially in economy debates. Recessions are bad.  Unemployment is bad.  These events have a life long effect on your physical and mental health that is ignored in debate in favor of improbable impact scenarios like resource wars, etc.   ---I think that fairness is the most important impact for me to consider when evaluating theoretical issues (including topicality).  It is very difficult to convince me that education should come before fairness.  Not being topical does not lead to the collapse of debate, but for me, this is first and foremost a competitive activity, and thus I am most persuaded by claims about fairness.   Quick Notes   ---I prefer policy arguments.     ---You must take at least one question in every constructive.  You must make a good faith effort to ask a question for me to vote for this procedural.     ---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional.   ---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once.   ---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate.   ---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition.   ---I vote negative more times than affirmative.     ---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you. ---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.   Background:   I am entering my thirteenth year of either competition or coaching in academic debate.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different, based mainly on structural differences.      As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a liberal hegemonist (I believe that the United States should use its expansive power to establish free markets, promote democracy, and maintain peace).   In graduate school, I studied presidential rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I wrote most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies   I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However, the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.      Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard.   I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion.   Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.   Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism.     Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.      Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans.     Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations.   Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable.     Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters.   Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”.   Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments.   Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year.   As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.    Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.

Lance Bubak - Solano

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.”

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.

Matthew Hogan - UNR

Name: Matthew Hogan School: University of Nevada, Reno Section 1: General Information Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE. To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round. I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you). Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too). I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument. Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially. Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry. My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard. If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com. Best of luck to you all!!! Section 2: Specific Inquiries Please describe your approach to the following. 1.â€‹Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? â€‹26-29 2.â€‹How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? â€‹Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can’t take back your discourse. 3.â€‹Performance based arguments… â€‹I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks. 4.â€‹Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? â€‹ â€‹I don’t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won’t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don’t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren’t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may. 5.â€‹Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? â€‹Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind. 6.â€‹Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) â€‹Yes, teams can share flowed arguments. 7.â€‹In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.â€‹ â€‹ 8.â€‹How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? â€‹As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first. BOLDED TEXT REFLECTS CHANGES TO MY PHILOSOPHY ON 10/29/12 Case Arguments: Fact cases generally make me upset and uncomfortable because I feel I must always intervene. Value resolutions, a little less so. I am most comfortable with policy rounds because I think it incorporates the other two types of rounds and then goes beyond; however, I will listen to the round no matter how it is formatted. Affirmative cases should be well-warranted, clear, and solvent; after all, affirmative does get the benefit of choosing their case. I think inherency is a difficult battle to win for the negative; however the link and impact debate are incredibly important. I probably give more value to solvency attacks then other critics. I view solvency/advantage links as the internal link to all the impacts I weigh for the affirmative, so for the same reasons why proving a no link on a disadvantage make it go away, I feel the same is true for solvency. Lastly, I will default to a net-benefits framework until either team provides me with a different framework in which I should view the round. Disadvantage Arguments: Generally enjoy the disadvantage debate. Disadvantages must be unique, with well-warranted internal links and articulated advantages. I hate hearing big impacts like global warming or nuke war without a clear articulated scenario of how we get there and how the impact occurs (same goes for the affirmative case). Example of a bad impact: Emissions create ocean acidity and lead to extinction in the ocean and the world. Example of a good impact: CO2+H2O results in carbonic acid, eating away the calcium shells of shellfish and coral, which are the 2nd most biodiverse place on earth and a major food source for all animals. I WILL NOT DO THE WORK FOR YOU ON THE IMPACT DEBATE. Links are very important as well, and while a risk of the link will get you access to the impacts, probability will greatly decrease, which given the right affirmative rebuttal may still not result in me voting for large impacts. Link turns are only offense if the government is winning the uniqueness debate. Counterplan Arguments: The following are my default views on counterplans; however, counterplan theory is completely up for debate, and I will listen to any counterplan if you defend and win the theory debate. I actually enjoy very clear, competitive counterplans. Delay counterplans generally are unfair and honestly quite unnecessary, since if you are winning the disadvantage, the CP isn’t required unless you have small impacts. Consult counterplans are a little less unfair than counterplans, but I feel somewhat the same towards these counterplans as I do towards delay. Consult CP’s have a little more offense, though. PICs are fine, but a little abusive (just a little J). I would just hope that you have a specific disad to the part you're PICing out of. I'm fine with topical counterplans. My default view is that perms are a test of competition, and not an advocacy. A perm is all of plan, and all or part of the counterplan. Anything outside of this, and I'll have a sympathetic ear to Opp claims of severance or intrinsicness. I prefer if you write out the counterplan and perm texts on separate pieces of paper to avoid debates about shifting perm/CP texts. I view all CPs as dispositional unless I'm told otherwise. To be clear, this means that Opp can kick it only if Gov perms it. If Gov straight turns the CP, Opp is stuck with it, unless they've declared it conditional at the top of the CP. Lastly, losing the counterplan doesn’t mean a loss for the opposition. Multiple Conditional (and usually contradictory) Counterplans will probably lose you the round, if your opponents tell me why they are abusive. They force the gov team to contradict themselves, run multiple uniqueness scenarios and definitely skew your opponents out of the round. Please do not run them. You already get the option between the status quo and/or a competing advocacy. You don’t need 3 more! (This applies to a kritik alternative and a counterplan, unless the counterplan is the alternative. Kritik Arguments: Framework of kritiks is incredibly important. Without a clear framework, I will simply weigh the kritik against the case, which generally means all you have is a non-unique disadvantage. I would much more prefer specific links to the aff case/rhetoric over resolution links (I am somewhat sympathetic to the affirmative when they don’t get to choose the resolution or side). More local impacts (personal/individual) will get you further in terms of the solvency of your alternative than huge impacts like “root of all violence”. However, I will listen to larger impacts as well, as long as your solvency can convince me that I can solve the root cause of all violence simply by signing my ballot!!!. Your alternative should be written and clarified if requested, and your solvency needs to be articulated well. Best option for the affirmative to answer the kritik is to perm, answer framework, or challenge the solvency. Impact turning something like, “the root of all violence” is risky, and chances are, the kritik probably will link in some way to the affirmative case. T and Theory Arguments: I give a lot of flexibility to the affirmative to be creative with their interpretation and affirmative case. On the flipside, I enjoy topicality debate more than most judges. I guess the two balance each other out and will result in me being able to hear arguments from either team regarding topicality. Interpretations should be clear, and preferably, written out. Ground/Fairness claims should have proven in-round abuse in order to win them; however, you might be able to convince me that prep-abuse is important too. Otherwise, in-round is the only thing that will win you a fairness debate. Other standards and voters can still win you topicality, though. Your voters should be related to the standards for your interpretation. Short, blippy, time-suck topicality will make me very sad and less likely to vote for it. If you are going to run topicality, you should be putting in at least as much effort as your other arguments if you expect me to consider it. Other theory arguments like vagueness, policy framework best, etc are all up for debate in front of me. However, theory should be explained clearly, and you should give enough pen time on these arguments, since generally there are not as many warrants for theory arguments as there are for case arguments. Approach to Deciding: Net-Benefits paradigm until told otherwise. I cannot stress enough the importance of the rebuttal for evaluating impacts. Tell me where to weigh, how to weigh, and why I should weigh the impacts the way you tell me too. I prioritize impacts in the following order unless told otherwise: Probability of impacts comes first, Timeframe second, and magnitude last. I will not vote on a try or die of nuclear war that has low probability if the other team has a 100% chance of feeding 100 people and saving their lives. This is contrary to my personal political perspective that catastrophic rhetoric can lead to political paralysis. However, if you want to go for big impacts, you can convince me to change my prioritization of impacts by arguing why I should prioritize timeframe or magnitude. Convince me why timeframe matters more than anything, or probability, or magnitude. Any of these can be enough to win you the round, even if you are losing one of the other standards for weighing. Big impacts don’t necessarily result in a win, unless you tell me. Without any weighing, I feel like I must intervene and do the work for you (which I don’t want to do), and you may not enjoy the decision I make if I do. Without weighing being done, I will default to probability over timeframe and then timeframe over magnitude. If you fail to argue why I should change the way in which I prioritize impacts, you may lose the round despite winning the line by line because I will default to a more probable impact scenario. THIS IS IMPORTANT, since most judges evaluate magnitude first and this is not in-line with my own views on policy-making. So if you are a large magnitude impact debater, you must make it clear why the magnitude should come before a highly probable, small impact advantage for your opponents. Presentation Preferences: Speed is generally fine with me. There are only a few teams that may be fast for me, and I will let you know during your speech if you are going to fast. Should you decide not to slow down, then you may not get your argument on my flow. However, I believe that this is an educational activity while also a competitive one. Therefore, if your opponents are asking you to slow down because they can’t engage, and you refuse to, you may win the round, but you may not get very good speaker points in front of me. I believe using speaker points is the best way of balancing my responsibility in making sure debate is inclusive and educational, but at the same time not being interventionist by giving somebody a loss for speaking to fast. Sitting is fine and won‘t affect your speaker points, but you’ll generally speak clearer and quicker standing, so I don’t know why you wouldn’t want to stand for your own sake. I am fine with communicating with your partner, but will only flow those arguments that are coming from the speaker. If communicating with your partner is excessive, then your speaker points may be affected. The person speaker should be answering cx questions (but you can get input from your partner). CLARITY is the most important thing in terms of presentation.

Mike Epley - CCSF

I think debate is an educational rhetoric game. I try not to intervene if the debate meets two principles: 1. By default, I will do my best to enforce the published rules of any event I’m judging - based on my interpretation/understanding of them. I’m open to different interpretations of the rules, but less open to arguments that “rules are bad.” If you volunteer to compete in an activity for a prize (the ballot), you’re committing to follow the rules as the first qualification to receive the prize. As far as I can tell, that’s the only way to keep a competitive activity fair. I’m unlikely to bend on my commitment to rule adherence as I see it as a gateway to competitive equity. 2. By default, I am inclined to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity and access in forensics. If you’re unclear on these points, please ask before the round begins. * These are not personal rules, but rather strongly-held biases. In the absence of an argument made in-round, and unless I think a violation is egregious, I am reluctant to intervene. My preferences: I like it when debaters are considerate. I don't like speed in debate. Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific questions, ask me before the round. Speaker points: I like hearing arguments about speaker points rather than making up my own criteria. Rebuttals:  I will protect against new arguments in rebuttals in scale with my level of certainty that they're new. Where applicable, please make it easy for me by calling Points of Order when you think an argument is new. My limitations: I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses: I did about 5 years of Parli, so if you’ve been doing policy since fifth grade you probably know some jargon and theory that I don’t. If I look confused, I probably am. Linguistically, I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. Buyer beware: I don't flow speed well.

Milan Fisher - CCSF

Mitchell Grover - UNR

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.

Neil Glines - Solano

My View of Parliamentary Debate: I enjoy a good mix of both worlds. The way in which you present your arguments is equally important as the types of arguments you present. I am open to any and all types of arguments. Speed is not an issue for me. Please be clear and try to avoid foaming at the mouth. Humor is underutilized in debate these days. A team that can have a good time while advancing their arguments will stand out in my ballot. GOV: I need a criteria or weighing mechanism in order to evaluate the round. When you provide one, unless I hear otherwise, all arguments should be weighed through it. Res analysis is an easy way to avoid muddy debates and lots of T, so use it. When you make claims support them with examples or some other type of backing. Cases that advance Tag lines with little analysis are problematic. MG: please answer opp arguments and extend your partners. It is hard to win when you get dragged off case and do little to advance the original case. PMR: When answering OPP’S arguments don’t forget to go big picture when providing your own voting issues. Please remember to flow arguments through your weighing mechanism. OPP: T, CP, K, DA, and any other type of argument you feel is appropriate are fine with me. Make sure you spend the proper time justifying them. MO if you run a new argument you might want to have a unique reason why. I want you to defend yourself from case shifts or teams that are moving targets. However running new arguments in the MO other than the above-mentioned reasons leave you open for turns by the PM in the rebuttals. LOR: Try to avoid going for the whole enchilada. Issue selection is key. Final Comments: Speaker points will be awarded to smart, witty, reasoned, and affable speaker. Points will be deducted from rude, oppressive, and offensive speakers. Above all else have a good time.

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Om Alladi - PDB

Oona Hatton - San Jose State

I give my vote to the argument made with greater clarity and concision. Evidence should be relevant and persuasive but not redundant.    When a match is close, I favor the following:   - Innovation. I always appreciate original and creative thought, provided it is within the realm of practicability. - Teamwork. I enjoy seeing a debate team whose members collaborate well, and who contribute equally to the team's success. - Depth of knowledge. As debaters, it is your job to be conversant with current issues and events. Your engagement with the topic should demonstrate your grasp of its greater implications in a national or global context.

Patrick McElearney - San Jose State

I prefer clear arguments that provide a realistic rationale, which lead to plausible impacts. It is not just about the magnitude of the impact; it is also about the probability of the impact. In addition, the clarity of an argument is more than its rationale and specific links. It is also the speaker’s delivery of the argument. I tend to prefer a conversational style of debate. I do not see an educational value to the speed of argument, but if an argument is both fast and clear, I will follow it. However, if I miss something, it is the speaker’s fault, not mine.  I am fine with quiet conversation between teammates, but the speaker on the floor controls what goes into my flow chart. I expect cordial interactions between all participants in the debate.

Phil Krueger - SMC

BACKGROUND: I have competed 7.5 years in forensics, four in high school and 3.5 in college. While in high  school I debated LD, Policy, Public Forum, and Parli. In college debate, I debated 3.5 years  doing Parli. I am currently an assistant coach for Saint Mary’s College where I coach parli and  IEs, and this is my first year coaching. I have judged approximately 40-50 rounds this year.  TRICHOTOMY: I recognize that there is a trichotomy to debate. Certain words, such as “believe” and “is” don’t  carry with them calls to action. It would be unfair for Opp if Gov were to run a Plan in a clear  non-policy round. However, I think fact and value debating harm debate overall by taking the  focus away from specific policies and how they directly affect people. As such, I prefer policy  rounds and if both sides don’t have a problem with it, I would prefer that every round is policy. PARADIGM: The only way for a debater to win a round is to outdebate the other side. I know this sounds  simple, but I will not do any work for you. If Side A says something that is not true and Side B  doesn’t contest it, then it belongs true for the purposes of the round. However, I am not tabula  rasa. I carry my philosophy on debate into the round, so by definition I cannot be tabula rasa. I would generally say that I have a policymaker’s view of who wins the round. Whoever can  prove that their plan benefits the world more than it harms it, wins. I listen and respect all  arguments, but the 1% solvency rule weakens link developments. I am far more likely to vote for  a lesser impact than nuclear war with a greater likelihood of that impact than nuclear war with a  bare minimum of risk.  I also don’t follow stock issues. I don’t require inherency. COMMUNICATION: Debate is a game, but well-structured arguments are key to winning that game. I am a flow  judge. I will not vote for a well-communicated argument if it is not warranted.  I vote on dropped  arguments that are clearly extended by the other side. Not addressing an argument is a strategic  choice made by a side.  Therefore extending that dropped argument goes a long way with me.  Most speed is okay, but I will say “clear” if I can’t understand you. ON-CASE DEBATE: Case debate helps, especially the Oppostion. I view presumption as a very light burden to break.  Once Gov. comes up and articulates a plan with some solvency and an advantage, presumption  switches over to Gov. Therefore Opp. teams should always debate on case. When debating on- case, Opp should put offense on case. While I dislike the 1% solvency rule, most defensive  arguments are mitigation and feed into it. Practically speaking, offense increases Opp’s chances  of winning the round.  However, that is not to say that straight defensive arguments cannot win a round. If Opp wants to  pursue this strategy, they need to make it clear that there is a zero percent chance of Gov’s  advantage/solvency/plan working out. Otherwise they basically link Gov’s case for them.  KRITIKS: It’s your round. I have no issue with Ks, with one exception. Under no circumstances will I ever  vote for a Critical Aff/Resoultional K. Gov has to affirm the resolution, how it does so is up to  them. But running a K on their own res is abusive to Opp. Language Ks run by the MG are fine,  provided there is a clear link to it. To expand on this a bit, while I generally think K’s (like value/fact resolutions) are a shifty way  to avoid specific policy debate, I recognize their usefulness in-round.  Moreover, I am not going  to punish a team that runs K as a strategy, as long as they affirm the resolution (Gov) or oppose  the resolution. I don’t think it’s fair that a team that prepares for Kritik should lose just because I  am in the back of the room.  I do think it is fair that a Gov team running a Resolutional K (Critical Aff) should lose, because  Gov doesn’t get to switch sides because they don’t like to talk about the resolution or want to  talk about something completely different. To emphasize, Gov can run a K out of the PMC, but it  would have to be a performance K explaining the need for the resolution. Gov can run a  language/speed/rhetoric K in the MG, since they cannot anticipate how rounds will go down.  Opp can run any K it desires. To win with me on a K, you need a clear link scenario and an actual alternative. The less likely it  looks like I am seeing a “canned” K, the more likely I am to be persuaded by the K. If the  alternative is “reject plan,” that is a weak alternative. I do think K’s can be permed, but I am  willing to be persuaded on this point. If Opp can tell me why it’s K can’t be permed, Opp can  win. COUNTERPLANS: I have no issue with Conditional CPs. However, I can be persuaded on theories stating why  Conditional CPs are bad/abusive. CPs do not have to be nontopical. I do have an issue with the concept that Opp can only win if it runs a CP. That is not true with  me. Sure, a CP is a great tool to co-opt Gov’s case and win a round, but Opp can win on straight  DA/case turns/solvency presses. They do not need a CP and often times Opp teams running CP’s  yield presumption to Gov by not debating case. That hurts Opp in the round, because practically  speaking it gives Gov. an important tool to win the round. With perm, I am open to theory debate on what can and cannot be permed. My feeling is that any  CP that does not directly contradict plan can be permed. That’s because perms, in my opinion,  measure opportunity cost: by doing plan, we lose the ability to do CP. Therefore a CP with a  different actor doing the same thing will likely be successfully permed by Gov. That being said, I  am open to debate on CP perms. Perms are also not advocacy in my opinion: Gov doesn’t case  shift just because they run perm. However, any perm that causes Gov. to alter plan text is likely going to fail Gov on the perm  debate. Severance perms are difficult for me to justify. Intrinsic perms can be argued one way or  the other. For me, the test of whether an intrinsic perm can be sustained is whether that perm  fundamentally alters plan text. If it does, then it likely cannot be permed successfully.  TOPICALITY/PROCEDURALS GENERALLY: While articulated abuse will never hurt a T, I don’t require it. Words/resolutions have meaning,  Gov has to hew to that meaning. I will vote on Extra/Effects T, even without articulated abuse.  This is generally true of most procedural arguments: I can vote without articulated abuse because  I believe that vague plans or procedural violations mitigate the value of debate for debaters  outside of round. Debate is a game, but it is also an educational activity that should make us  better informed policymakers. POINTS OF ORDER/REBUTTALS: In order for me to spotlight a new argument, a debater must point of order it. I may have on my  flow that it is blatantly new, but it isn’t my round. You are the debater, you tell me why it is a  new argument. I have been persuaded on Point of Order argumentation before, so don’t give up  just because you think the complaining debater has a strong point. As for rebuttals generally, like most critics I want my rebuttals to showcase your side’s strongest  arguments in-round. Magnitude plays a small role for me. Any debater can throw “nuke war” out  there and add a 1% likelihood of it happening. However, I prefer likelihood of an impact  scenario over the most detrimental impacts. If I weigh people are going to lose a certain amount  of income over the aversion of nuclear war, I will probably go with loss of income (assuming  that team can prove it is likely.) I don’t have any preference for long-term vs. short-term impacts,  but a team arguing in the long term risks having their impacts blocked  by the other side’s short  term impacts. (E.g.: Team A argues this is cheaper in the long run but Team B argues that it is  more expensive in the short-term, thus causing economic recession that impacts long-term  productivity. Team B probably has an advantage.) With rebuttals, be clear and concise.

Phil Sharp - UNR

I competed in HS Policy and College NPDA. I was formerly the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR (9 years). I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. Not a fan of the original argument being nothing but a tag with no warrant and the PMR back-filling. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method. Some things that you should know: A. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making). B. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most intuitive as presented. C. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them. Additional Considerations: 1. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it. 2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is yucky. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them. Please note that I haven’t judged a ton of rounds this year and so my pen is slow. 3. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted to my decision. 4. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote. I will flow the LOR straight down the page (like a big overview). Once the PMR is over, I will look back at the LOR arguments before I vote. 5. I find Kritiks to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for them. If you run a K or performance on the aff, please provide a clear Role of the Ballot and defend the fact that you defend the topic. If you run a K on the neg, I expect to see a unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative and solvency. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm. 6. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true. 7. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories. 8. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. Judges all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. Few of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win. 9. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how you’re obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits. 10. I am liberal. I will vote in as unbiased way as possible based on the arguments in the round and my predisposition on questions of debate theory, but I thought it was fair to tell you my political leanings. 11. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, homophobia, general inappropriate behavior and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be less good comparatively. Don't act like you should win every single argument.

Prince White - Los Rios

n/a

Rachel Fagg - Concordia

Rob Killian - UNR

Rob Swanson - PDB

Having been in your position plenty of times, I understand that it is always difficult to encounter a judge you are not familiar with. I likely fit that description. While this philosophy is mainly for you to use when I’m judging you, I hope I can inform you as to whether I am a sucky random judge or a good judge you just don’t know and may want to pref. So, since you’d probably rather be spending your time cutting case negs and uniqueness updates, here’s a tl;dr version of my philosophy at the top, with your mindset while preffing me in mind: Disadvantages of having me: 1) I’m not intimately familiar with this year’s topic, so I haven’t read the popular authors/cards, I haven’t seen your topic specific disads, and I haven’t seen T debates play out over the course of the season. 2) I haven’t judged you before. Although you can read my philosophy and cater to me as much as possible, judges you’ve seen a lot will likely give more predictable rfd’s from your point of view. 3) While I was a policy debater in high school, I mostly did NPDA/NPTE style parli in college. If you’re not familiar with it, it is pretty similar to policy in terms of argument types and having substantial speed (I also regularly cut plenty of cards). But since my most recent judging, coaching, and debating has been in the context of that event, there are recent tendencies in the policy community I am likely not familiar with, no matter how in touch I am with policy (which I think I generally am, but that’s for you to judge from my specific views below). Advantages of having me: 1) I am highly familiar with high speed, technical debate, and all basic argument structures and types. 2) I try to project myself into the round as little as possible. 3) I know how arguments function, I know all jargon, and I am fully aware of how to sort through arguments as defined by community norms (you won’t see me flowing CX, voting on an arg that wasn’t in the 2AR/2NR, voting on a link turn with no uniqueness, misunderstanding a double turn, etc.) Please feel free to ask me anything before the debate round. Also feel free to clarify anything about my RFD that you do not understand. Now onto the larger enumeration of my views: Background: I have 8 years of debate experience, encompassing 4 years of mostly policy in high school and 3 years of successful NPDA/NPTE parli debate at UPS. For those of you only familiar with high school parli or APDA parli, NPDA/NPTE parli is (in terms of types of arguments and having substantial speed) similar to policy. I have judged high school policy, but it has been a while, and more recently I have judged and (occasionally when not busy with law school) coached college parli. Speed: I have never had trouble with the top speeds, and you should go as fast as you feel comfortable with. Be mindful that I have not seen rounds on this year’s topic, so I am not familiar with the popular topic-specific authors and cards being read. You should therefore be extra clear with your tags and especially your author names. You’ve read your 1AC a million times, but I’ve never heard of that author with the really long name. I obviously am familiar with any generic position (like heg for example), but I haven’t seen a hundred debates on your topic specific disad. Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks, although in my judging record I haven’t found a bias in their favor. Teach me something new and execute it well. When I debated, the community mostly viewed me as a K debater, but you shouldn’t assume that I’ve read every bit of the lit for your K. Just for reference (and not because I profess perfect knowledge of these arguments), the K’s I often ran included authors like Agamben, Baudrillard, Haraway, Butler, and Heidegger (obviously not all in the same K). In K debates, it is especially important to mention how arguments interact with each other, be this through a framework debate, impact calc, or some other mechanism. I also find that kritiks tend to do better the more contextualized they are to the specific topic or aff in the round. Often, the more generic your links are, the less ability you will have to generate unique impacts that will be well contextualized themselves. Disads: A strong link can overcome bad uniqueness (but it doesn’t overcome 100% lack of uniqueness). Good brink analysis allows a smaller link to trigger the impacts. I will weigh (and you should be weighing this for me) the risks of scenarios when trying to compare impacts. Good weighing from the debaters prevents surprises come the RFD. CPs: Feel free to run whatever CPs you feel are strategic. I often smile upon well-executed advantage counterplans. Legitimate permutations include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. Try to make your permutations net-beneficial. I view perms as tests of competition. What better way to destroy the CP than to read disads to the CP that are solved by the perm (which should also solve the neg's disad)? I don't feel too strongly about most CP theory. Run your args and I'll sort it out based on the flow, but I'd prefer the debate doesn't get bogged down in too much theory. Topicality: T is a voting issue. I have never ever felt compelled to make it a reverse voting issue. I default to a competing interpretations framework. If you want me to do something different, make the arguments. In responding to a topicality position, you should always have 1. we meet (if at all possible), 2. counterinterpretation, 3. we meet the counterinterpretation, 4. counterstandards, 5. defense in response to the opposing standards. To win that your counterinterp > their interp, you must win that your counterstandards > their standards. Although they are rare, I think that good, substantive topicality debates can be a lot of fun. Theory: See topicality for evaluation of a lot of similar issues. I'd rather see a debate about the topic than a ton of theory (I consider good, substantive topicality debates to be about the topic, by the way, so this doesn't apply there), but I will not punish you for doing what you need to do to win. That is, if you're going to win the debate on theory, by all means do so. I tend to err neg on most theory (i.e. you probably won’t win that condo is bad), but I usually carry a presumption that whatever behavior is being criticized is theoretically legitimate (this presumption will not save you if you’re blatantly illegit and the other team calls you on it). I find that most theory backfiles include woefully inadequate analysis. This is likely because most good theory debaters contextualize their theory to the particular behavior they find illegitimate, and that contextualization usually isn’t generic enough to put in backfiles. What this means for you: reading your taglines from your generic backfiles in 10 seconds will not make a winning theory argument in front of me. Offense/defense: Supplement your offense with defensive arguments. They are especially important on the impact debate. Sure, you can make a bunch of low-probability straight turns, but does everything really cause extinction? Taking ten seconds to make a few incredibly easy impact defense arguments can go a long way, especially if you’re link turning and are behind on the uniqueness/link debate. Also, please start the impact calculus/comparison early. Speaker Points: I don't know why putting this in my philosophy would change anything, but debaters seem to care about this. I strive for an average of 27 over the course of the tournament. If you got anything over a 28 from me, you were very impressive. I rarely give anything below a 25, but if you got a 30, I most likely meant to give you a 20 and accidentally wrote a 3. That is to say, 30s should be so incredibly rare that almost no one should ever get them. Maybe I will give out one or two over the course of a full season, but probably not. Point of Orders: I will protect against new arguments made in the rebuttals, but you can call them if you want. Although it may be inevitable, I hope that you do not change your strategy too much because of me. Obviously, adapt to me, but more importantly do what you do best, as I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate and try to impose as little as possible.

Robert Hawkins - CCSF

Robert Birlew - Pacific

n/a

Ryan Guy - Chico

Guy, Ryan California State University, Chico   Me: <ul> <li>Debated NPDA for two years after transferring to Humboldt State.</li> <li>Fourth year coaching speech and debate at Chico State</li> <li>I also teach Rhetorical Theory, Argumentation, Research Methods, Group Communication, Intercultural Communication, and Public Speaking</li> </ul> The Basics: <ul> <li>Debate is a game. Play it well.</li> <li>I’m fine with the average levels of speed in NFA-LD and Parli.</li> <li>Procedurals are fine and can make for good debate.</li> <li>I okay with the K. That said do it well or I will be annoyed.</li> <li>I default to net-benefits unless you tell me otherwise</li> <li>Tell me why you win.</li> </ul>   General Approach to Judging: 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. 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. 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. 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.     Specifics: 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. 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 smart. 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. Critiques: I enjoy 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. 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 is still topical. 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? Speed: I think in general speed can be 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.”

Sean Hayes - SRJC

<blockquote> Sean Hayes, Santa Rosa Junior College Background:  I have about 5 years experience in debate, both as a competitor and as a coach.  I'm going to keep this short so please feel free to ask me any questions before the round if you need anything cleared up. Debate preferences: FRAMEWORK: I strongly prefer policy debate.  I think that other forms of debate exist but I think that policy/net benefits provides the best framework for evaluating the debate objectively.  If you want to run something else be my guest but make sure you justify why your framework is more important.  If there are no substantial framework arguments from either side I default to a policy-maker/ net benefits paradigm. TOPICS/TOPICALITY I strongly prefer that you talk about the topic. I think topics are important and there is a reason that we have them.  If you are on the affirmative and you read your project for me I will be strongly inclined to vote on topicality.  Obviously arguments in the round will dictate the result but you should know that if you choose to avoid the topic you're fighting an uphill battle with me.  That being said, if the plan is topical then I probably won't be inclined to vote on topicality unless there is real articulated abuse.  I don't vote on potential abuse. K:  I don't like it. That's not to say I absolutely won't vote for it but I think that too often teams use the K as a crutch because they aren't well-informed about the topic. Often times the framework and arguments that they choose are far too generic and are really just used to shift the ground away to give the team running the K an advantage.  I think the K has its place in debate but it is limited.  Please make sure if you do run a K that it specifically links to the case.  Generic Ks will not get my ballot. IMPACTS:  You should have them.  What I find far more important and compelling though is a good link/internal link story with solid warrants.  Give me something probable or at least plausible instead of pulling out a nuclear war impact that is not likely to happen.  Evidence and warrants are the most important thing in debate and unfortunately far too many rounds are lacking in them. SPEED: I'm OK with it but you should know that I am not a full-time debate coach so I haven't keep up with my flowing practice.  Clear and compelling arguments are far more important than sheer number.  You probably shouldn't go full-speed when you're going over something that is important, but for theory I definitely understand the need to spread and I shouldn't have trouble keeping up.  I will call clear ONCE if I cannot keep up with you on a position. </blockquote>

Simon Kern - CSUN

n/a

Somerset Bassett - SRJC

<blockquote> Somerset Bassett, Santa Rosa Junior College Judging Paradigm 2014 I think the resolution affects how I evaluate a round, if the resolution is broad I will listen to generic K’s or tic’s with less animosity than if you run them on a specific policy resolution where the oppositions ground is predictable. I tend to vote affirmative (around 60%) probably because I dislike K’s, Theory, and PICs. Sorry opp. The K- I will vote for the K and have run it both as affirmative and negative, however running the k in front of me tends to be an uphill battle. 1. I would like to judge the round without intervening and most K frameworks prevent this from happening.  If you ask me to vote for impacts that extend to real world then I feel I have an obligation to determine that your either not credible or I have to intervene as I wont endorse a real world movement that I’m opposed to simply cause the mg didn’t answer an argument, either way your odds of winning that round are slim as I will blame you for forcing me into that predicament and will listen openly to arguments of abuse or degradation to the activity. 2. In terms of literature I have a novice level of understanding on most commonly used philosophy however, please explain your argument, and don’t rely on an appeal to authority.  Thesis’s are helpful, go-slow here and explain your central argument early in the speech.  I would much rather you explain what your project is and defend it as opposed being sneaky and extending some muddled spew. 3. I feel that policy debate tends to be more grounded in reality (just barely) than the k debate and will look forward to debates on good topics.  I will not consciously punish you for running something else but understand that when I’m yawning through a generic FW debate I tend to give lower speaker points. CP- I prefer the disadvantage/advantage debate however I also enjoy a good counterplan plan debate. In terms of status I tend to side with conditional being ok, however dispositional without an explanation pisses me off, so be careful if that’s your strategy.  Blipped out preempts about severance should be answered in kind as I will do anything I can to not vote there. The permutation debate I prefer is that of net benefits i.e. Is perm better than CP. Multiple condo/perfcon strats/ 5 off + cp/ etc. – I will be very sympathetic to theory against these strats .(if you run the right interps!) because its probably not fair and more importantly I think it’s bad for debate. Positions either develop in block/PMR interaction or not at all.  I will give the PMR a lot of leeway in terms of new answers to a strategy that becomes intelligible in MO as it should have been in LO so if your going to run five off make sure you can develop them in LOC, especially those you plan to go for otherwise I will let the PMR be a constructive. PICs- I’m fine with PICs in general, I ran them, they make sense as an opposition strategy my one problem occurs when the aff has only 1 topical plan text ie. pass HR 356 in which case I am inclined to buy abuse claims. Speed- I don’t believe my preference is important, as you should debate your way as much as possible.  My capacity to flow fast debates is good, there are debaters who are too fast for me to flow well, but not many.  I generally think speed k/theory are a waste of time however if mishandled I will vote for them. Debate is a communication event and therefore if I didn’t flow an argument you made it is your fault J I’ll try to keep up. however ensuring you have clear taglines, allow pen time, and don’t jump all over the flow will be to your advantage. Theory-I ran theory very selectively almost always to protect against an abusive MG argument.  I hate whining and I hate exclusive technical theory.  I don’t think competing interpretations makes sense in parli and will generally prefer arguments saying I should vote on abuse in prep time or in round.  I don’t say this to discourage you from running theory as protecting your strategy is very important, if you think you might need it run it and kick it later. I wont punish you, but if you collapse to it you should have some real abuse present to convince me to vote here (also prove your lost ground matters).  I think there are situations where you can go for theory and a da/cp/case turns /whatever but if you do be careful of contradictions as any reason not to vote on theory is generally good enough for me. POOs – Please call POO’s if the PMR makes a new argument, LOR too I suppose but only if they are fundamentally changing the PMR strategy. Ie. Picking up a crucial drop out of the M.O.  Don’t call them excessively it’ll lower your speaker points, make me ignore your next POO’s nuance, and generally bother me as after 40 minutes of speeches I am generally sick of watching you argue. Impact Calc.- I prefer an impact calculus that favors probability to magnitude.  I generally don’t think a .00001 chance of nuclear war is a reason to not fix the economy right now.  Get ahead in terms of comparing impacts early in the debate I do think answering that death is worse than dehumanization in the PMR is new if the LOC said the opposite, so do your work early and it will benefit you. </blockquote>

Stephen Ban - Butte

Taureanna Shimp - Chico

Tim Heisler - LPC

n/a

Tina Lim - San Jose State

You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason.  My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position. As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.

Todd Guy - MJC

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

Vanessa Fernandez - PDB

I am graduating from Cal in December, I was a policy debater in HS and a Cal Parli debater in college. I have only judged at the GGI this year. I don't like to intervene so tell me what I should vote on and how each sheet interacts with other sheets in the round (i.e. if you're running a kritik with the same impacts as the case at least tell me why the kritik comes first and o/w, etc.). Impact calc and thorough analysis at the end of the round is really important. I like theory, but I also love a great CP with a substantial net benefit. T is something I've voted on in the past, I don't generally think it is a reason for an RVI so just save it for another page. Keep the round clean and I'll generally give decent speaks. If you're going fast please be clear, I'll say clear once and the rest is up to you. One of my biggest pet peeves is mumbling in debate rounds, the second is being super rude without having a reason to be. I don't like performance debate, be it on the aff or with a ridiculous alternative. I'll buy framework over performance. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them for you at the beginning of the round.

2013 Golden Gate Regional Opener