FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Angela Gregory - Chabot

Brittney Bryant - U of Houston

n/a

Calen Horton - Solano

Carlos Flores - CSUN

n/a

Carol Schaefer - MJC

Chaz Kelly - Chico

Chris Hunter - U of Houston

n/a

Col Andy Grimalda - Concordia

David Hale - CSULA

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.

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 Lamb - Solano

Jeff Toney - SJDC

Jennifer Hidalgo - MJC

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.

Jonathon Cottrell - Concordia

Josh Ward - MJC

Kathleen Bruce - SJDC

Background: I have been involved with Debate for ten years as both a competitor and a coach.  I competed from 2003-2007.  I coached at University of the Pacific for two years and have been coaching at San Joaquin Delta College for the past 2.5 years. Overall Philosophy: Debate is a game, in my view.  Debating about AWB leading to nuclear war is not realistic, therefore debate is not realistic.  I look at debate as a chess game where every type of argument is a piece on the board and used to take down the "king."  Meaning I will listen to anything and will vote on anything as long as it is warranted within the debate round.  With that said, every judge has preferences. Here are my preferences: Procedurals: Competing interpretations doesn't make sense to be ran as a priori, but if you have warrants as to why it is a priori, Im all ears. Also, education as a standard or a voter cannot be quantified in a logical way to render my ballot.  As far as my  voting behavior I have a low threshold on Topicality, but high threshold on new procedurals ran in MGC (only because this allows PMR to make a lot of new arguments without a response for the neg).  I really like procedural debates when done well.   Kritiks: I love critic debates. I hate bad ones. I weigh the framework heavily when evaluating the arguments on the K.  I am not a fan of Reject the Aff Alternative, but I have voted for it.  The alt, should framed as counterplan or a clear way to adopt an ideology. Impacts: I prefer probability and timeframe over scope and magnitude. Speed: I can keep up as long as the taglines are clear, you slow down during a plan or counterplan text (so, i can get every word), numbering is consistently clear, and the rebuttals don't sound like another constructive.

Marina Whitchurch - SRJC

Mike Fain - U of Houston

n/a

Nicole Sandoval - Ohlone College

n/a

Patrick Moe - DVC

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

Phillip Azevedo - MJC

Shannan Troxel - Chico

Stephanie Anderson - San Jose State

Tariq Bruno - Pacific

Tariq Bruno: I an open to multiple interpretations as to the purpose/rules of debate (as either a competitive activity or an educational activity). Absent any arguments to the contrary I will default to a tranditional net-benefits paradigm, and evaluate augments according to the direction of the debaters. Assuming a close round, the magnitude, scope, and probability of your impact scenario might matter in round. Terminal impacts should be BIG (at least to get my ballot). While it bothers me to my core to do so, If you fail to articulate any offense against your opponent I will vote for the other team on a 1% risk calculus. Anything more specific feel free to ask me in-round.

Taureanna Shimp - Chico

Teresa Teng - San Jose State

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.

2012 Golden Gate Regional Opener - SFSU Swing #2