FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Cassidy - Mesa

Al Arviso - EPCC

n/a

Andrew West - CSUN

n/a

April Griffin - IVC

n/a

Ashley Nuckels-Cuevas - Pacific

Ben Lohman - OCC

Chris Lowry - Palomar

Courtney Anderson - OCC

David Berver - Mesa

Dewi Hokett - Palomar

Geoffrey BrodakSilva - CSULA

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important. I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year. Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import. I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices. I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices. I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position. A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation. Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative. Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration. At the end of the round, the best arguments win.

Grant Anderson - UNK

n/a

Heidi Ochoa - Saddleback

J. Edward Stevenson - Azusa

n/a

Jacki Evans - Utah

Jill McCall - Moorpark

n/a

Joel Anguiano - EPCC

n/a

Jules Throckmorton - IVC

JULES THROCKMORTON-FRENCH: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE   Background of the critic:   I've been involved with Parliamentary Debate for the last 10 years; whether that be competing, coaching, or judging. I competed from 2001-2004 for what was then known as the South Orange County Forensics Team (SOC). Since that time, I went on to earn my Juris Doctor at law school. However, my love for forensics brought me back to the speech and debate community. I've coached debate and individual events at both Saddleback and Irvine Valley College. I am also the Director of Individual Events at Concordia University.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.):   I consider myself a flow judge. I don't have any particular likes or dislikes- I will be open minded to whatever you choose to run in front of me. I will try to be as tabula rasa as possible. With that said, call every "point of order," or I will flow it.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making:   Communication is important as, after all, this is a communication event. However, good communication will only get you so far; I may award you high speaker points, but good communication skills will not necessarily win you the round. As far as speed goes, I am ok with a moderately-fast pace so long as it is CLEAR, necessary, and well signposted.  Remember that I have been focusing more on individual events this year, and as a result my flow has gotten a little slower. Be careful, b/c if you are going too fast I will not give any verbal signals.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making:   I think a good debate involves offense and defense, and a good debater will never put all their eggs in one basket. However, there have been plenty of rounds where I've picked up OPP even though the on-case was conceded.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating:   I will be open-minded to whatever you want to run.   Any additional comments:   I will time road maps!!! Make the round an easy call for me- weigh everything out and tell me EXACTLY where you're winning and why. Give me clear voters & tell me where to pull the trigger. Please be clear and signpost. Also, please do not be rude! Finally, I am old-fashioned in the sense that I believe you should stand for your speeches, and if your partner has something to contribute they can simply pass a note rather than yelling out.

Larry Radden - Saddleback

Liana Koeppel - Cypress

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

Mary Ross - Mesa

Mickey Korac - CSUN

n/a

Neal Stewart - Moorpark

n/a

Paul Davis - Azusa

Rachelle Kamrath - UNK

n/a

Sherana Polk - OCC

First, I like arguments that just make logical sense.  Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic.  However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions.  Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it.  I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response.   Second, delivery is important.  The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable.  If you are spreading then you are less understandable.  If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you.  Please be organized and signpost where you are at.  If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you. Third, I think that there are three types of debate.  So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate.  Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me.  So run the proper case for the proper resolution.  If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there.  I also think that Gov should always stay on topic.  So if Gov is non-topical then run T.  I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue.  If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose.  So just argue the topic.  I am willing to listen to Kritiques.  I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue.  However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary.  So run it at your own risk.      Overall, I really like debate.  If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge.  So do your best!

Stephen Thomas - CBU

Vaness Estrella - Grossmont

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - Concordia-CA

n/a

Whitney Hart - Pacific

Experience: I have been around some form of debate since 2003. I debated policy in high school for two years; in college, I debated LD four years and parli for a semester at Missouri Southern State University. And I’ve been coaching/judging in some capacity since 2009. <o:p> </o:p> In general, run whatever you want. As long you as explain how the position accesses my ballot, I will vote on it. Debate is a game. Be strategic to win. The round is yours and you should make it your own. The following information is about my general judging philosophy, but I am willing to suspend my ow<a name="_GoBack"></a>n preconceived notions to vote where the debaters tell me to vote. These are my defaults. <o:p> </o:p> Please do impact calculus. I have found myself having to weigh issues in such a way that it gives me a headache, so do it for me to make my decision easy. I tell debaters to “write my ballot for me.” What I mean by that is do sophisticated comparative analysis and explain exactly what I should vote on and why and you will probably come out ahead. Impact calculus does not necessarily mean that your argument “outweighs” in a traditional sense of the word. But each argument you make in the debate round should serve a purpose and you should make that purpose explicit to me. On a related note, I am really tired of hearing ridiculous impact scenarios without internal links. If your impact is global nuclear war, tell me how you get there in a way that actually makes sense. Too often, positions are much like fat bottom girls (bottom/impact heavy and not link heavy) … and while they do make the rockin’ debate world go ‘round, they give me a headache. I am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if you neglect your internal links. And do not tell me something is dehumanization without explaining HOW it is dehumanizing. An individual not getting paid what they deserve is not dehumanization. <o:p> </o:p> Speaker points: I award these based on a combination of how well you present yourself and the quality of your arguments. If you are excessively rude, your speaker points will reflect that. If you argue with me about a decision I have made, expect to see 1 speaker point on your ballot (yes, that’s o-n-e). Also—do not prompt your partner. This annoys me beyond all else. They are your partner. You should trust them. If you must help them, pass them a note. If you have to tell them what they should say every time they start a sentence, you need a new partner or you need to stop being such a control freak. I will tank your speaker points for this. Also, if the person who is giving the speech doesn’t say it, I don’t flow it. <o:p> </o:p> Speed: I do not care how quickly you speak. I will keep up. I really love listening to someone who is fast and articulate. As long as you do not sacrifice clarity to speed, we will be fine. If you are gasping for air and incomprehensible, your speaker points will suffer. I want a good, substantive debate. Speed should not be used to exclude others from the round, but should be used to enhance the quality of the debate by allowing debaters to a greater number of warranted arguments. <o:p> </o:p> Procedurals: I love debates about debate. Specification arguments regarding funding, enforcement, agent, etc. are great, but I prefer they be resolution-specific and the negative must explain how that particular specification is important. It’s difficult to convince me that the resolution sets a precedent for what the plan text should include since everyone has only known about it for about 20 minutes, so be prepared for me to be empathetic to a “normal means” response. I default to competing interpretations, but part of the standards debate should probably be ground arguments. Topicality: I love topicality debates and I view topicality as an issue of competing interpretations. Don’t blip out voters. I don’t know why I would vote on “fairness and education.” I have never heard a compelling RVI. I do not really know what it means to be “reasonably topical” because I have only heard it articulated in a way that wasn’t totally asinine once. The opposition can just as easily come up with an arbitrary interpretation of the resolution and use topicality to exclude the government as the government can arbitrarily demonstrate the resolution with their case to exclude the opposition. <o:p> </o:p> Criticisms: I was not a K debater, but that does not mean I have not voted for them. However, a clearly articulated alternative is a must. To win the K in front of me, you have to win the framework and the alternative. Do not assume that I know the same things you do about what your specific author says. Explain the thesis of their argument to me and explain why your criticism accesses my ballot. This is largely neglected. What role does my ballot serve? This needs to be explicit. Critical affirmatives: I will listen to them, but I will also listen to arguments about why your critical affirmative isn’t topical. <o:p> </o:p> Counterplans: are conditional unless otherwise specified. Counterplans should be held to the same standards of solvency as the affirmative. <o:p> </o:p> General information: When the PMR or LOR makes a new argument, I cross through it on my flow, whether you call the point of order or not. Call points of order if you’d like; they are a useful check against your opponent and a tool only available to parli debaters. But if you’re going to call a point of order, explain why your opponent’s argument is new. Also, if you’re going to respond to points of order, explain why it’s not new with direct reference to the previous argument (speech where the argument was originally made, how it was phrased, etc.) so I know what you are talking about and can rule accordingly. But I don’t evaluate new arguments. <o:p> </o:p> I don’t believe in shadow extensions. If you are the LO and you make an argument in the LOC and your MO does not extend it, an LOR extension is a new argument to me. Same thing goes for PMs and MGs.

2012 Taylor-Wolniewicz