I debated in college and became partial to the original ideas for CEDA (value debate). I have judged Parliamentary debate and Public Forum debate at the high school and collegiate level. This is my fourth year judging Parliamentary debate at Santa Rosa Junior College. I consider myself a “real-world” judge. I will only vote on dropped arguments if they are necessary and significant. If an argument is dropped, and it is irrelevant, then I am unlikely to be persuaded that this is a “voter” in and of itself. In awarding speaker points, I am very influenced by whether you are respectful toward one another. I don’t understand why one would be rude to a fellow competitor. Skill is revealed in the argumentation, not the attitude. I can tolerate speed as long as you enunciate and make your tag lines clear. I appreciate direct clash and refutation. In terms of the construction of arguments, I prefer a logical link structure, and I won’t make the leap for you; if the other side drops your argument, but your claim is untenable and is supported by weak links, I won’t vote for it. In my day, we called this “death on the flow” arguments. If you claim that a lack of recycling leads to nuclear war, I’m going to need you to help me make that connection: A LOT. I am not a fan of K. Unless you can convince me that your K really impacts out in the real world; I suggest making arguments against case.

I competed in high school (NDT) and college debate (CEDA).  I have judged and coached for Parliamentary Debate.  I am objective, although not entirely tabula rasa.  I will vote on K and T arguments, and I do not allow my personal opinions to influence my understanding of the topic; however, I do insert myself regarding blatantly illogical statements, or purposefully fallacious reasoning.  Debate is a reasoned activity which should sufficiently incorporate strategy, but it should not be "gamey" to the point of irrationality.  I flow, understand, and organize well, which means that I will know where you are on the flow and what you are talking about without needing extra elaboration.  In advance, thank you for taking your time to engage in this extremely important activity.

Background: I debated in Parli from 2003-2007. Asst. Coach at Pacific from 2007-09. DoF at Delta College 2011-2019. I prefer policy style debate over value.

debate is a competitive game. Have fun and kick some ass. Don’t be rude... I was rude when I debated; no good came from it. Be better than me.

What I like: clash. A plan. Realistic “Probable” impacts. Rebuttals that make me want change religions. A PM that makes eye contact during their PMC. Debaters that debate to the audience instead of their egos. Ks. Tag lines. Warrants, I love warrants. Evidence, at least some. Sarcasm. Penguins. Oh and topicality, this argument used to be so cool! Let’s bring it back 2020!

What I hate: two ships passing in the night. Bad speed: debaters who go fast to be cool, but they can’t be understood because they are bad at it. Rebuttals that just summarize. Not answering POIs. Expecting me to be persuaded by you when I have yet to see the whites of your eyeballs. I hate nuclear war as an impact... is that still a thing?...if so don’t run it, I don’t buy it... no really stop thinking illl buy it from you...you’re a dirty dirty liar and the truth is not in you! If your opponent runs nuclear war- collapse down to your opponent is an idiot that doesn’t understand international politics and they should lose the ballot. I will probably vote for the team that doesn’t say the word “nuclear”

okay, so probability over magnitude impacts wins my ballot. Nuclear war is an automatic loss. And yeah beyond nuke war have fun. I’ll flow ya, just speak slower than 260 WPM.

In terms of experience, I debated through high school and college in parli. I will listen and vote for any type of argument, and while I may have preferences, I will always prefer you to run a position that makes sense and is well constructed than an arg you think I would want to hear and/or vote for. Procedurals are a good debate tool: I don't need proven abuse, articulated is fine, but I do need clear (preferably non-shifting) violations and "believable" standards and voters. I do prefer policy debates, however, I am always up to vote for a criticism, I will just be looking for a strong framework and "real" links. I probably won't be familiar with the literature, so make your point clear. I am okay with speed, if I do fall behind you'll see it on my face so just watch for that. Other than that, just be courteous and make smart args.

Last updated 10/21/18 8:27 am

IPDA -

While the guidelines below apply to my approach to IPDA, I will not be strictly a "flow judge." I'll take a more holistic approach in my evaluation. This is a public speaking event, so I'll be more of an "audience member," and less of a panopticon than in other forms of debate.

Discretionary information about me: I love classic motorcycles, Marvel comics, Mario Kart 64, and podcasts. I grew up in Florida and I've been sorted into house Slytherin.

PARLI AND LD -

I view debate as an educational rhetoric game. I try not to intervene if the debate meets two vital *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, but less so to arguments that “rules are bad.” If you volunteer to compete in an activity for a prize (the ballot), you’ve committed 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 any 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 will do my best to perpetuate a culture of inclusivity and access in forensics. There may be times it seems like excluding your opponent is the easiest way to my ballot; That will never be the case.

If you’re unclear on these points, please ask.

* These are not personal rules, but rather strongly-held biases. Unless a violation is egregious, and/or in the absence of an argument in-round, I am reluctant to intervene.

My preferences:

I like it when debaters are considerate and bring good will and good humor.

Ultimately, I’m down for whatever you want to do. If you have specific theory questions, ask me before the round.

Speaker points:

While I understand their utility, I find them very shadowy and subjective. I'm open to arguments in-round about what criteria I should use to determine speaker points. In order to not be so much of a statistical outlier among the judge pool, I keep speaks within the 25-30 range. My feeling is that I'm on the high-end of the distribution (I give more 29s than 26s).

My limitations:

I believe I’m familiar with most of the norms of college-level debate, but I have some weaknesses. I have some difficulty flowing top-speed arguments with high-level accuracy. If you're unsure what my threshold is, look for visual cues or ask. Speed at your own risk. 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. As Sean Thai puts it, "Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them." Linguistically, I’m more fluent in English than I am in Debate. The only "philosopher" I know decently well is Foucault.

Amendment 1 - 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 Point of Order when you think an argument is new.

Bonus points for weird stuff that's not abusive or exclusive.

Background: 4 years of NFA and NPDA, also competed in IPDA as well as I.E.’s, 4 years of NFA National qualifying, Won multiple regional NFALD tournaments and broke at NFA nationals twice. Pi Kappa Delta All-American. This is my 3rd season as an Assistant Coach at Sacramento State

Judges I looked up to: Jared Anderson, Chad Meadows, Scott Laczko, Sue Peterson

TL;DR: You do you. I will vote for any position if you win it on the flow. I have preferences, and those preferences will influence speaker points/ close rounds.

I will judge on the flow. But I expect debaters to extend dropped arguments in their last speech if I am to evaluate them. I want you to tell me what to weigh on the flow. If you don’t I vote on comparative risk, meaning if I don’t get a compelling argument why you solving extinction in 40 years outweighs the risk of a relations DA that leads to war, I default to the greater risk.

Specific Issues:

Speed: I am cool with it. I used speed and I think it is an important part of debate. Be clear. I will never call speed, but will call clear. Debaters, know the difference. If an opposing debater calls speed, at least make an attempt to include them. I am NOT receptive to speed procedurals. I am receptive to Speed is ableist/occularcentric kritiks. Basically, just be inclusive.

Kritiks: I love K’s. Please, please, please cut them yourself and read the literature. I don’t want to hear your backfile Heidegger K off of Open Evidence. Make it relevant to the topic and link to the plan. If it’s an identity K, you got to tell me why the topic or affirmative issue areas particularly engages that identity. I WILL NOT vote on links of omission. Alt has to at least solve the impacts of case or tell me why the impacts of case don’t matter. Aff, engage in the Kritik. Defend your methodology. I don’t want to hear “K’s are cheating”. That’s a bad argument. If you don’t read framework, tell me why K outweighs case. I need an Alt. I need to know how the alt solves.

Topicality: Me likey T. I don’t like the dichotomy of T vs every other position. Topicality has kritikal implications and I am more than fine with interrogating T from a Kritikal perspective. Give me reasons why education and fairness matter. They aren’t just magic words that win you the debate. I default to competing interps. T is ultimately your version of how the round should happen vs your opponents. Aff, if you are going to argue reasonability, I need to you tell me what be reasonable looks like. It doesn’t need to be a full on interp, but even something like “The aff has to reduce military. We do that.” I don't need proven abuse. It helps sure, but you can win my ballot with potential abuse. That is a recipe for low speaks in front of me.

Procedurals/Assorted Theory: I vote on the flow. With that caveat, there are some arguments I dislike. I dislike full cites procedurals. I have little desire to vote for it. I dislike voting on spec arguments. Run specs to get links to your positions. I think stock issues work best as a procedural in NFA-LD debate. I will vote on solvency/inherency procedurals. You aren’t clever running Time Cube. It’s not funny or edgy. UPDATE: I am extremely receptive to disclosure theory, when appropriate. I believe debaters should disclose the 1AC the round after they read a new aff. I disclosed all aff and neg when I debated, but I think the bare minimum is the 1AC. It’s not an auto-win, but I do think until debaters lose because they don’t disclose, coaches won’t care to make them disclose. It’s good for the community and for education. Full stop. UPDATE 2: I have an extremely low threshold on Test Case Theory.

Counterplans: I love a good counterplan and I don’t think anything is off-limits. So feel free to run a conditional consult PIC in front me. I don’t think PIC’s or Condo are bad, but I will vote that they are if you convince me via well-warranted analysis and win it on the flow.. I need you to articulate some form of competitiveness, but it’s the aff’s burden to challenge it. I think CP’s can be competitive just through net benefits. I’ll listen to them, but please for your sake no ridiculous consult Ashtar/Loch Ness monster/Chluthlu counterplans.

Perms: This is where I may deviate from others in the community. I don’t automatically assume a perm is a test of competition. If you say something like the perm solves better and your whole AR is vote on the perm because it solves best and the neg runs theory on that, I am willing to listen. To flesh this out more, 9/10 times the perm is a hypothetical test of competition and test of alt/CP solvency. It all depends on how it is framed and I expect debaters to be diligent in understanding the way the perm is framed before they automatically pull out “perms bad” theory. Explain why the perm proves it’s not competitive. I’m also willing to listen to perm theory. I tend to think severance/delay perms are abusive, but again debate it in front of me and I will listen and vote on the flow.

DA’s: I love a good disad debate. I prefer specific links, but if you have a good card that says why any action causes it and you support it with good analysis, I’m down. I have no problem voting on the risk of the DA. But tell me why the disad outweighs. I think the best disad’s have something that indicates the impacts are a root cause or take out the solvency of the aff; I just think it gives you more outs on the DA

Aff’s: Affirm the resolution. I give you some leeway in the 2AR because you really are at a structural time disadvantage in NFA-LD. I like to see good aff structure. You have infinite prep time to prepare a well thought out structured aff.

Performance: I think if you are going to run these sorts of position I am going to hold you to a high burden to prove why I shouldn’t vote on framework or T. I prefer neg teams argue the methodology of the performance, rather than reading bad impact turns that make you look like a jerk. As I said, I will vote on the flow, and since a lot of debaters don’t know how to answer performance well, it can be effective, but I would err heavily toward voting on framework. Not that I don’t think your performance has no merit or I’m a racist/sexist/homophobe/transphobe, I just think you have a lot to justify on why I should vote for your performance. But I WILL listen, and won’t automatically vote against you. It’s more that I just don’t want a neg team to get up there and cry “Cheater!”. But please, you do you and I will listen and vote on the flow.

NFA-LD (or whatever format I am judging) Rules: I don’t like voting on rules in debate. That being said, I will. But I think there are so many ways to bend the rules that teams should have answers to most rules issues. Basically, it’s like cool, I get that NFA-LD rules say Solvency/Inherency/Topicality, but what’s the impact other than breaking rules? I don’t think the rules themselves are an impact, so figure out how they relate to fairness, education, or the other impacts.

In debate, this is what my ideal round would look like: I don’t like speed, I’m more of a lay judge, not too much into K’s so run them at your own risk. I’m a coms judge, I like a good presentation. Ultimately I go off of what’s on my flow, please make it clear why you won the round during rebuttals. For topicality, it’s a tool to protect the negative in debate, I’m not a fan of it being used as a time suck.

For LD, please share your files with me via speechdrop.net

Other questions, feel free to ask before the round starts.

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

My name is Bria Jones, I am from Sacramento State University. I have debated for four years for Sacramento State, one of which i debated in Policy debate and the last couple years I debated in Lincoln Douglas debate. I have been judging for 2 semesters now and I love a clean and clear debate.

Topicalities: if your going to run this argument make sure that you have a clear interp. This means your standards are backing up what your interp is, not simple just reading generic standards that don't mean anything.

Counter Plans/ K: if you run this go slow, if you read at top speed and make argument I don't understand I will not vote for you. Make sure you explain your argument clear and have a alt that has clear solvency.

I try and keep as much of a blank view as possible.  Being human that is an impossibility.  But if a claim is made and it isn't refuted at all by the opposition then it will stand with me.  I am a flow judge.  I like orderly plans and orderly responses to those plans.  I like road markers.

I am okay with technical arguments if they are worth running.  You will have to work hard to show and prove abuse if you are running them.  

Voters are a big issue with me.  Flush them out completely, I want their probability, magnitude, and why it should win you the round.

I'm a game debater and what that means for you is I'll judge any argument, any speed, run whatever, go nuts. I'll judge a round with spread debate, I'll also listen to a speed procedural.

I like structured debate. Be careful of the line between aggressive debate and being rude to your opponents because at the least it will lose you speaker points fast. When it comes to the win I'll be tab so go for whatever position you want. When it comes to speaker points I look for structure, good line by line, and people not being jerks. I'm not looking for you to be overly formal and courteous, I'm just not gonna award high speaks to people that are condescending.

Updated 10/29/13

 I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points.

To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico

the reason you read the philo-  

Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me. 

stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. 

If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together.

K's-  holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the literature base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do?

T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse

C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized.

case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days. 

theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

I competed in NPDA for 4 years and read everything from procedurals to policy to kritiks and don't have a preference for any particular style over the other. It's your debate so do what you do best. I'd rather see you read my least favorite argument well than read my favorite argument terribly.

Procedurals: Love em, all types. Conventional, unconventional. Don’t care. The only procedurals I don’t like are ones that are run poorly. I am bias in the condo debate though. I don’t believe in condo bad, but I’ll still listen to it and if you win the position, I’ll vote for it. It is just harder to win that position in front of me. However, I do think multi-condo is bad so I have a lower threshold for voting on that shell. Other than those two debates, I don’t have solidified opinions.

Kritiks: It is your job to explain literature in a concise and understandable way. Don’t read kritiks that you can’t explain, because I won’t make the explanation for you. I thoroughly enjoy kritikal debate, but not when a team runs a convoluted position that no one in the room understands. I think that is sloppy debate designed to collect cheap wins, and it will reflect in your speaks. With that being said, feel free to read any kritik in front of me as long as it is actually an argument and not a jumbled mess of bullshit.

Policy: I love a good CP/DA debate against a solid policy aff, and I think throwing critical arguments into policy positions is fun to do and watch. I really enjoy solid case debate and think it is sorely lacking in debate right now. So if you can make case debate great again, you’ll get higher speaks.

If you have specific questions, feel free to hmu on facebook or around the tournament.

I debated for Chabot College, coached for Long Beach State and am now ADOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in NFA-LD, but I have also participated in/judged/coached some parli. Although I do have debate experience, I have been living in the world of IEs, so it's wise to treat me more like an IE critic than a debate one. I definitely prefer to hear discussion about the topic at hand over a critical case, but will vote on any argument (T’s, CP’s, K’s, etc.) that is reasoned out, impacted, and persuasive. Especially if you run a critical argument, as this was not my forte, make sure you clearly explain everything about it and why it is more important for us to accept your kritik and reject discussion of the resolution. It is up to you as the debater to impact everything out for me and tell me why I should be voting for you over the other team.

I’m not a huge fan of speed in either LD or parli. While you don’t have to speak at a “conversational” pace, if I can’t keep up with you, your arguments won’t end up on my flow. I want to be able to hear and process your arguments so that I can determine a winner. Tags and impact calculus are going to be the most important things to hit, and you can speed up a bit during evidence.

I don’t mind if you communicate with your partner during a round, but the current speaker must say the argument in order for it to end up on my flow. The current speaker should be the one doing most of the speaking during their turn. No ventriloquism.

Any transferring of files in LD (via Speechdrop, email, flash drive, etc.) should happen during prep time.

Above all, keep things civil and have fun!

Decision Making: Follow the rules and negotiate with your partner and opponents what the debate is about and how it should be evaluated. I aim to manage my bias and vote for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever, responsive, and dynamic arguments. I like well-reasoned and supported claim, and tend to vote on cogent, criteria-based arguments that are weighed against other issues in the round. Debaters should provide/contest a framework and/or criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation, add dimension where possible, and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. I tend to think education and storytelling is at the heart of forensics, but that can be problematized and I can be persuaded to think differently about our roles and/or the role of the ballot. I appreciate debaters who engage in line-by-line debating but also offer overarching narratives of what happened in the round.

Communication Climate: The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Attack the arguments in the round rather than the people. Debaters may experience discomfort and disorientation, and that can often be valuable in a learning environment. Heckling and cheering is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. Use preferred gender pronouns or avoid gender pronouns altogether. I will listen to you throughout the round. I hope you will continue to listen to each other.

Delivery: In terms of speed, the debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). For me, delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, and pauses. Avoid distracting nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Delivery will not factor into decisions. Delivery may affect speaker points, but I aspire to resist dominant norms about what sounds and looks credible. Speaker points are awarded based on efficiently making quality arguments.

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

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).

In NPDA, 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.

I appreciate stock issues, organization, and impact calculus. I favor articulated abuse for T arguments. K's are fine.

Brief history: though I did not compete as a student in debate, I've been judging NPDA for about five years. The 2018-2019 academic year is my second year judging LD.

I have two years of competing Parli and LD, so here’s some of my stances? Overall I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round I’m okay with speed, as long as it’s not stupid fast if I need you to slow down for me I will let you know. This being said I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

AFF:

If you want to run a Kaff you can just be sure to defend it and prove that it has solvency for the issues you bring up. I do not find them as persuasive as running case proper. Other than that defend yourself and prove why you’re preferable over the neg. I think that’s a fair request.

NEG:

Disads - I like to hear Disad vs. Case debate. However, I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me.

CP - Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on the face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.

I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not, in the end, prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.

T/Theory - I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either-or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.

In terms of other theories, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations of parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other team's responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications

For both Aff and Neg: on K's I don't find K's as persuasive as a running case proper. I'll listen to them, but remember that personally, it's not my preference and that you'll need to do more work for it to convince me ie. giving a realistic alt that functions both inside the round and outside of it, and that will actually solve the structural issue that you bring up. I don't vote on the risk of solving with the alt.

At the end: Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won.

I feel like an OG debate judge, even though several others have been around longer than me. However, I think it is only fair that I acknowledge that I have been a squirrel in several round in the past 5 years. In other words, your rep means as much to me as a Stark in Game of Thrones. With that being said here are my positions.

Counterplan - I do not have a silly disposition on them. However, that doesn't mean I will not vote for good condo bad theory.

Theory - I hate potential abuse - I got pulled over 21 times in one year and received two fix-it tix so... If you are going to run theory I need to know the specific ground lost. Tell me what positions you couldn't run, or what links you cannot logically gain access to because of whatever the other team is doing.

Weighing - I tend to prefer bigger magnitudes over smaller more probable impacts. If you are going to go small then framing probably should accompany your position. In addition, weigh through your framing!

In general, I look for the most straightforward way out of the debate. When I was a new judge, I used to do the most, looking at every sheet 3 or 4 times only to come up with the same decision I had 20 minutes prior. Now, I let yall point me in the right direction. If you want me to vote for you, walk me down the path. I put a lot of weight on rebuttals. So, during your impact framing keep that in mind.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.