Judge Philosophies
Amanda Hale - IVC
Analicia Avila - Cerritos College
Ashley Graham - El Camino
<p>This is probably the most important thing to know about me: I believe that debate is a game. Therefore everything to me is viewed as a way to win. While education can happen and critical thinking can happen, ultimately you want the ballot otherwise there’s no impact to how I judge debate rounds.</p> <p>Overall a clear framework and specifically a way to evaluate the round are going to be important in finding a way to evaluate the arguments in round. That being said, impacts win rounds. Structure and signposting are also extremely important. </p> <p>On Topicality: this is a voter for me; however it can also be used as a tool to secure ground or for competing interpretations. This is up to you as whether or not going for the T in the LOR is the best choice. I don't dislike T debates just multiple poorly warranted T rounds. </p> <p>On Kritiks: I will vote on the K as long as there is some type of legitimate alternative/solvency mechanism. I have voted on the K and have no unique pre-disposition against them.</p> <p>On Speed: Overall speed is okay. Usually I find that an increase in speed leads to a decrease in clarity. Most times speed is unnecessary but again it is your strategic choice.</p> <p>On NFA-LD: here the rules are much more explicit and I will vote where the rules tell me to. This does not mean I will outright intervene, but it does mean that I will have a higher propensity to vote on procedurals that are run when the rules are violated. For example if there is a position about speed, then the chance that I will vote on it is high unless there’s some brilliant response. </p>
Aubrey Manahan - El Camino
Awndrea Lassiter - Rio
Ben Porter - El Camino
Brian Heins - IVC
Brianna Nishie - Vanguard
<h2>Brianna Nishie – Vanguard University</h2> <p><strong>Question 1 : Background of the critic</strong><br /> While my high school did not have a debate program, I spent my high school weekends at PSCFA tournaments watching rounds of debate. Upon entering Vanguard University I immediately joined the speech and debate program. I was a modestly successful debater who spent much of her Junior and Senior years as a competitor working as a peer coach. I graduated VU in May, 2011 and worked the last 2 years as the assistant coach at Vanguard. I currently work in social media as well as a speaking coach for professionals while continuing to help the forensics community with coaching/judging. My academic background is in communication with an emphasis in PR.</p> <p> </p> <p>I was trained by what can best be described as an “old school” parli coach – and I have several of her fundamental traits in my own philosophy. I have, however, more tolerance for some technical arguments than my former coach may have had. </p> <p> </p> <p>I do not look at debate as a game. The fundamental reason for this is that there are too few “rules” and the “rules” get to be “interpreted” for each team….this to me is problematic in terms of fairness. I do feel that parliamentary debate has its foundation in the ideal of generally educated people being able to present an argument on a topic with limited preparation time</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong></p> <p><strong>As a former debater who lost more rounds than I can count because I ran value on what I considered a value resolution but lost to a judge who thought that the only “true” weighing criteria was through a policy lens, I have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to trichot arguments – assuming there is an adequate justification for the argument.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>I believe that there are certain stock issues that should be argued; if nobody talks about definitions or a plan or who enforces the plan (for example) then how do I know if the plan is a good idea? Tell me where I’m voting and why.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Sometimes resolutions do call for debaters to act as policymakers – in this case one should clearly delineate what the harms are, how the harms are to be solved and what the advantages of solving the plan are….It might help you to know that my political leanings are probably more conservative than the average judge on the circuit when making a plan…</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Finally, in the age of group preparation – make sure you understand any specialized case that was constructed in prep time. Please remember that this is parliamentary debate, don’t just read your plan text and PLEASE don’t toss an extra copy to the opposition so you feel exempt from the obligation to explain your case – this is not CEDA.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong><br /> </p> <p>Parliamentary debate was founded in response to what had become a loathsome communication event – CEDA – and it seems that a lot of the reasons people left CEDA (speed, spread, reading evidence with no audience connection whatsoever) are seeping into Parliamentary – that doesn’t make me happy about it. Speak plainly and clearly – sometimes you have to go fast – ok, but if you go too fast so that the communication has left the event – don’t expect high speaker points and if I can’t keep up don’t expect to win. This doesn’t mean speak to me like I’m an idiot. Be persuasive. You can be a horrible speaker making fabulous arguments and win – you can be an incredibly persuasive, articulate speaker making horrible arguments and you can lose. Moderation is a good thing here.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong><br /> On-case argumentation is important – if you make it important. Dropped arguments can also be very important in terms of what your opposition decides to do with them. Not every argument needs a ton of attention – so use your time wisely.</p> <p> </p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for</strong><br /> </p> <p>I am not a fan of critiques – I feel this is more an issue of the way they have been flung around as largely non-linked disadvantages. I could probably vote on a K if it was very well articulated – but that’s your job. I’m not a big fan on procedurals – again, a personal bias – but procedurals are an available tool – so if they are necessary – use them, but explain why I should weigh them in the round.</p> <p> </p> <p>One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech.</p> <p> </p> <p>I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job.<br /> </p> <p>Be personable, have some fun, and be brilliant. Tell me what matters in the round. Tell me what wins. Give me every opportunity to give you the ballot. </p> <p> </p> <hr /> <p> </p>
Chathi Anderson - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies</p> <p> </p> <p>2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.</p> <p> </p> <p>I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>FYI: I started debating last year and competed in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized. Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.</p> <p> </p> <p>I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.</p>
Chris Hacela - IVC
Chris Danks - IVC
Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col
Grant Tovmasian - Rio
<p>The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon) I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)</p>
Jen Page - IVC
Jen Clarry - El Camino
Jesus Caro - Cerritos College
Joseph Evans - El Camino
<p>~~About me: I have been involved in forensics for 10 years. I debated HS LD for 2 years, and then 4 years of college parli debate at UCLA. I coached at CSULB while in graduate school, and I am now currently the assistant coach at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of intellect, and therefore I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate.<br /> The way I evaluate the round: I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the eyes of a policy maker. Unless I am told otherwise, I tend to fall back on Net Benefits. This means that I will evaluate the arguments based on how clear the impacts are weighed for me (probability, timeframe, and magnitude). I will however evaluate the round based on how you construct your framework. If (for example) you tell me to ignore the framework of Net Benefits for an ethics based framework... I will do so. On the flip side, I will also listen to arguments against framework from the Neg. You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and weigh out why your framework is best.<br /> Speed: I am usually a fast debater and thus I believe that speed is a viable way of presenting as much evidence as possible within the time alloted. I can flow just about anything and I'm confident that you can not out flow me from the round. That being said, I value the use of speed combined with clarity. If you are just mumbling your way through your speech, I won't be able to flow you. While I won't drop you for the act of being unclear... I will not be able to get everything on the flow (which I am confident is probably just as bad).<br /> Counter Plans: I will listen to any CP that is presented as long as it is warranted. In terms of CP theory arguments... I understand most theory and have been known to vote on it. All I ask is for the theory argument to be justified and warranted out (this also goes for perm theory on the aff).<br /> Topicality: I have a medium threshold for T. I will evaluate the position the same as others. I will look at the T the way the debaters in the round tell me. I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps. You run T the way your see fit based on the round. Additionally, I have an extremely high threshold for "RVIs". If the neg decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them. I will vote on T if the Aff makes a strategic mistake (it is an easy place for me to vote).<br /> Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in many of the theories that most critical arguments are based in. Therefore if you run them i will listen to and vote on them as long as they are well justified. I will not vote on blips as kritical arguments.<br /> Framework: I will listen to any alt framework that is presented ( narrative, performance, kritical Etc.) If you decide to run a different framework that falls outside the norm of debate... you MUST justify the framework.<br /> Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)!<br /> Rudeness: don't be rude!</p> <p> </p>
Karen Nishie - Vanguard
<p> </p> <h2>Karen Nishie - Vanguard University</h2> <p><strong>Question 1 : Background of the critic</strong><br /> Two and a half years college parliamentary debate 11 years coaching parliamentary debate. DOF at Vanguard University. <br /> <strong>Question 2 : Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</strong><br /> I am often called an "old school" critic -- which I think means I adhere to trichotomy (believing that there are three distinct types of resolutions with three types of argumentation that follow), I also follow stock isues with the rationale that they make for a cleaner debate than not. While I am well read I am not in the round -- meaning you don't have to argue the other team AND my biases/opinions. You should appreciate this. I have voted on positions that are, frankly offensive to my world view because that's where the debate went. I have never (to my knowledge) voted because the debaters did not cater to my world view nor have I assigned ballots to bad arguments that supported my personal world view -- I think that answers the question on tabula rasa. I may be the last judge standing who believes that opposition has presumption entering the round and that affirmative has specific burdens (like upholding the resolution, defining terms etc -- see stock issues). I am not a fan of claims that aff did not have to fufill primae facia because poi's "check back". Opps ability to ask questions is not a responsibility to make sure Aff is doing their job.<br /> <strong>Question 3 : Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</strong><br /> Very. This is a communication event preparing (in my mind) you to be better citizens and better communicators. I can keep up with speed, I just don't want to have to. You should be persuasive, this activity is great training for a future in advocacy, law, education, ministry, homemaking...fill in the blank -- and in no profession (other than auctioneer or voice telling me the potential harms of some new medicine) is speaking as fast as you can possibly spew words out a positive. In fact, a lot of what I see (lack of professionalism, lack of politeness, lack of respect) will likely COST you in the "real world". If you are speaking so fast that you spit on me -- it will not reflect well on the ballot -- and if you have to breathe in so hard that you break a rib let it be known that I do not know first aid.</p> <p> </p> <p>Also, as a side note, I don’t appreciate foul language at all, but particularly in public presentations that are meant to be persuasive. Dropping the F bomb in front of me is likely to earn you ridiculously low speaker points.<br /> <strong>Question 4 : Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</strong><br /> Very. Especially for the affirmative. For opposition you can stay off case, but all aff has to say is flow across and every argument they made stands -- in net benefits this may not benefit opp. Unlike some critics I think the opp has very few burdens (I believe they begin the debate with presumption and aff must prove other than the SQ is good) other than refutation and good argumentation. I will never drop an opposition team that did not run a counterplan.</p> <p> </p> <p>One more thing – each speaker is given a set amount of time to speak – don’t talk over your partner during their time – I’m only flowing the person who’s turn it is to speak – so, make each other look strong and credible by giving your own speech.</p> <p><br /> <strong>Question 5 : Concerns about any particular argumentative approach/arguments which the critic rarely/never will vote for</strong><br /> I find Kritiks over used and under impacted. I like links so if the kritik is well articulated, well linked and well argued, I will buy it -- otherwise leave if for other critics. Arguments about how vampires have rights, or how the X-men function are probably better left for other critics also. I am a pretty pragmatic person so being overly creative (modern dance, hand puppets, arguments in the form of Haiku) are probably lost on me. I see my role in rounds simply to evaluate the claims you make and weigh them in the ways that you tell me to. If you fail to tell me how things weigh out then you give me permission to make up my own weighing paridigm -- and that will be bad for you.</p> <hr /> <p> </p>
Katie Barone - Cerritos College
Kelly Kehoe - IVC
Kenji Claudio - Vanguard
<p>I'm tabula rasa, and vote on stock issues. K's are fine if they're done right, bottom line is that I prefer clash over canned K's. I enjoy meta-narrative arguments and creativity. I will vote for anything as long as it has empirical evidence and is not boring.<br /> </p>
Liza Rios - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Liza Rios – Irvine Valley College – Judging Philosophy</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I started competing in individual events over twenty years ago. I have a MA in communication and teach a variety of communication courses. Recently, I have been judging more debate rounds. I do not yet have a strong theoretical foundation in advanced strategies, but I will try to understand your arguments and take a flow sheet. </p>