FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Cadena - Rio

Background Information: I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. This is my first-year coaching/judging collegiate forensics, and I am a graduate student at CSUN. If me being a first year out is a concern, feel free to strike me. How I evaluate rounds: I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like full and completed arguments. Do you have Warrants, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? If you are running a K, please state the Alternative Twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. Some other comments: Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to “win a ballot.” If you don’t care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POI’s are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

Alexis Arredondo - PCC

n/a

Allison Bowman - Moorpark

n/a

Alonso Aquije - Moorpark

n/a

Ana'ly Garcia - CBU

Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC

n/a

Ashley Johnson - Biola

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Brianna Broady - SMC

n/a

Brianna Garcia - Rio

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

BG: I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. Impacts: You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. Case Debate: I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. Diadvantages: Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. Counterplans: Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. Conditionality: I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad.  Kritiks: I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. Identity Arguments: With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. Theory: I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. Speed: Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. Speaker Points: If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. Miscellaneous: Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round.

Bryan Malinis - Mesa

Content: I am a stock issues judge. I will vote on presumption if the government team fails to provide a substantial on-case that meets their burden of proof. I am looking for the team that provides the strongest arguments based on common knowledge; evidence-based arguments are welcomed, but not required. Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide claims, data, links, internal links, and impacts. I will not make the argument for you in my head--you must tell me what to think! I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. In parliamentary debate, I expect you to articulate abuse and points of order. In IPDA, treat me as a layjudge; I know nothing. Topicality: I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-justified by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. This is an a priori voting issue for me, but only if presented correctly! I will vote on a suicide T, especially if the procedural was absolutely necessary and correctly presented. . Kritiks: I am not a fan of these, so proceed with caution. I will not immediately drop you for using a K, but these arguments must be justified and clearly articulated. Use common sense here. Delivery: Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am fine with partner-to-partner communication; however, I will only flow what the present speaker says. Please keep audible P2P communication to a minimum while an opponent is speaking: excessive talking hinders my ability to truly focus on the present speaker. Expectation of Decorum: Debaters are expected to perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Excessive insults will result in me dropping your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too.

Caitlyn Rosenberg - Moorpark

n/a

Chloe Smit - IVC

n/a

Christian Green - Mt SAC

n/a

Dana-Jean Smith - Saddleback

n/a

Daniel Gilchrist - UC.Irvine

n/a

Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC

n/a

Das Nugent - Mesa

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

David Flores - Rio

Dawne McClure - Saddleback

n/a

Dayna Akbar - Mt SAC

n/a

Dulce Flores - Rio

Elsa Guenther - Mt SAC

n/a

Emily Sandoval - Rio

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

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

Gabriela Enriquez - Rio

Grant Tovmasian - Rio

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.)

Hannah Haghighat - OCC

Irene Zhen - El Camino

n/a

Isaiah Washington - CBU

n/a

Jamie Morgan - LAVC

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark

n/a

Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC

n/a

Jedi Curva - ELAC

n/a

Jen Page - Cypress

n/a

Jessica Kwack - SMC

n/a

Jimmy Gomez - OCC

Johnny Kelly - PCC

n/a

Joseph Evans - El Camino

~~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. 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. 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). 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). 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). 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. 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. Evidence: Have it (warranted arguments for parli)! Rudeness: don't be rude!

Josh House - Cypress

Background: I competed in NPDA/NPTE debate at the University of Wyoming from 2000-2004. After that, I coached Parliamentary debate at Purdue University, CSULB, and then Pepperdine University for the next 7 years. From 2012-2015 I was the DoF at Central Wyoming College and I came to Cypress College as the DoF this year. Over the past 4 years as a DoF I've run programs that offer many other events in addition to Parli and I haven't really traveled the nationally competitive Parli circuit in that time so much as I've gone to local, full-service tournaments. I honestly don't know how I think NPDA should look right now. I am willing to hear anything I guess, but I'm increasingly convinced of a couple of things: 1. Traditional policy-style Parli seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I love CP-DA debates, and I've fallen behind on the K/methods/etc debate in the past few years so I feel less confident evaluating those debates just because of my relative lack of experience. I feel much more comfortable judging a CP-DA debate on the topic, but that comfort simply is not the most important consideration right now. 2. We need really clear and accessible strategies to function as a meaningful, effective force for positive change in the world right now. I want to understand your position even though I haven't heard the argument before, and I want to know exactly how what you do or what I do benefits the world right now. I think in the past this kind of perspective has been used to dismiss K teams, but... TLDR: I want to be clear that I'm basically saying here that I'm fairly* certain I'd like to see critical debate from both sides, and I would hope you are willing to meet me at my level of understanding (I mean, look, if I'm on a panel and you punt me I won't be offended) and that you can explain your position in a way that I can teach to my non-forensics students and the friends and family I have across the country in various rural and urban areas.  *I am willing to be talked out of this, which is why I use the qualifier fairly.

Juan Guerrero - Rio

Karthik Jagadesan - UC.Irvine

n/a

Katie DelBagno - Moorpark

n/a

Kaylie Heyer - Mt SAC

n/a

Kevin Briancesco - LAVC

n/a

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kristina Ewing - Moorpark

n/a

Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback

n/a

Maia Gaboian - LAVC

n/a

Malcom Gamble - El Camino

n/a

Matt Grisat - CBU

n/a

Matt Contreras - OCC

n/a

Meaghan Loeffler - IVC

n/a

Michael Moran - Rio

Michael Kalustian - LACC

n/a

Michelle Gironda - OCC

Monica Eslamian - S&D@UCSD

n/a

Nate Wensko - OCC

Nichole Barta - IVC

Nick Bishop - El Camino

Patricia Hughes - Rio

I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate. I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.             When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters. I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.              I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.             I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments. While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Paxton Attridge - ELAC

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC

n/a

Rolland Petrello - Moorpark

n/a

Sean Connor - OCC

Shaunte Caraballo - IVC

n/a

Shaw Davari - OCC

Shawn O'Rourke - Saddleback

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!

Skyler Meador - IVC

n/a

Sung Gyung Lee - El Camino

n/a

Swaim Guetling - Mt SAC

n/a

Tien Ngo - Rio

Twee Pham - OCC

Victor Cornejo - PCC

n/a

Vlada Casteel - Canyons

n/a

William Neesen - IVC

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

Willie Washington - IVC

Zack Segretto - Canyons

n/a

2018 Tabor-Venitsky & Southern California LD Championships