Jared Anderson -- Los Rios Colleges

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

The basics –
My general philosophy is that this is your debate to do what you like. It really shouldn’t matter if I “like” your arguments. I grow ever more concerned about the idea that judges will not vote for teams who run arguments they find “boring”. It is probably not a good idea for you to dismiss an argument because you find it boring either. Essentially, you don’t really need to adjust your strat for me. What you will need to do is make sure I’m able to follow you. If you are counting on me making a bunch of assumptions or dismissing things that are inconvenient for you to answer, well, that probably won’t work out for you. I'm more comfortable with what we call straight-up debate, for what that is worth, so if you need me to be on the same page as you regarding your performance or project or whatever, you may want to strike me. The one argument I am least comfortable with is the K of debate. I have a number of problems with this argument, but mostly I find it to be poorly articulated and overly generalized. If this is your argument and I am your judge, I may vote for you, but I'll probably be pretty unhappy about it.
In terms of speed...I take a pretty good flow but often find that people transition between pages in an unclear way. Make sure you signpost well for me. Also, I found out earlier this year that there are some teams out there that can really press my ability to flow them. If you are one of those super fast teams you may need to take it down just a notch to make sure I'm flowing everything. This has really only happened in a couple of rounds at bigger national tournaments, so no, little novice, you don’t need to slow down.

T/Procedurals/Theory –
Like I said above, I’ll vote on nearly anything, even bad theory. So you need to answer it. I do find theory debates interesting and compelling when done well, so go for it. I lean towards competing interpretations on most procedurals and Topicality – so you would be wise to provide a counter-interp for T. I tend to lean Neg on most other theory, particularly counterplan theory. I can be convinced fairly easily that consult, conditioned, delay counterplans are not ok, but pics, conditionality, and multiple counterplans all seem legit to me. I tend to try to resolve theory args in the least punitive fashion available (reject the arg, not the team) but if the team making the argument is calling for the ballot and the other team isn’t responding, then I will resolve it in that way.

Disad/CP –
I have a fairly traditional understanding of these positions, not a lot of advice for you here. It will be very hard for you to win “terminal defense” on a disad. If the neg is going for a disad and hasn’t dropped the link, they are likely to win some risk, so you need to do the work elsewhere on the flow. Minimal risk can usually be outweighed by the aff, but you need to do this calculation.
Counterplan texts can be a pain in the ass to flow, so you should be sure that you are explaining exactly what it is and how it competes.

Also fine by me. I’m probably (almost certainly)not as familiar with the lit as you are, so make sure you are explaining your position. I don’t particularly like whiny args that claim you should win just because you did your funky thing, without ever explaining what your actual argument is. I’m also not a big fan of whiny args that claim the other team should lose because they argue in a different manner…move past this stuff, explain your arguments either way and you should be fine. Make sure you clearly explain your framework for evaluation.
IMPORTANT NOTE - I don't get Lacan. Sorry, I don't. I have a hard time understanding your K if it is really involved psychoanalysis, so you will really need to take the time to explain it.

I can give a "gruff" rfd after the round. Don't read into this. I like this activity, I like what I do, and I like *you*. I'm just not a smiley guy and I want you to debate better. If you don't like my approach to debate that is fine too...strike me next time, or adjust. If you look at my voting history for the season, it looks like I’m not a good judge for the aff this year. I honestly don’t know why this is, but I suspect this is just a case of small sample size. I wouldn’t read too much into this info, more recent tournaments have seen more aff wins.

Paperless debate – I will continue to run prep until you hand your flash drive over to the other team. That is about as fair as I think I can be with this. I get frustrated with all the techno fail in this particular style of debate but I recognize that many of you don’t have the choice. You should seriously practice this element of the debate as much as anything else you are working on.

Evidence – The quality of evidence has gotten generally appalling. I would like to see more arguments about this, but there are a couple of things in particular that really bug me. I’m seeing more and more K lit being cut from text books or other types of review literature, where what you are cutting is not remotely reflective of what the author thinks or believes and is, in actuality, descriptive of another author. In other words, cutting from some philosophy text talking about what Foucault or Baudrillard supposedly think. Sometimes this is done because that particular card is worded well, but what is also happening a lot is that the author you are citing is badly misinterpreting the original literature, or you are getting credit for the thoughts of a particular author while avoiding the indicts. I also really don’t like cards cut from random blogs on huffpo or elsewhere for your politics cards. I’m seeing a ton of just blatant campaign lit being cut as if it were authoritative in any way. It isn’t. This doesn’t mean that in certain circumstances you can’t use blog evidence; you just need to explain the qualifications of the source. You should look at the quality of your opponents evidence and make some arguments about it. I’ll be receptive to this.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
UNLVJVOctoDenverAguirre0Walizer0GonzoCruz0Gunsolus0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
SFSU-1JVQurtSFSUHamud0Teter0PepOrdog0Yang0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
SFSU-1JVSemiPepOrdog0Yang0ChicoLaczko0Trinkeller0NEG 2-1 (NEG)
DVC-1NovQurtSwstrnRosales0Small0FresnoEizadi0Kovtun0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
DVC-1NovSemiCSUN/VandyBelzberg0Mitchell0FresnoEizadi0Kovtun0NEG 2-1 (AFF)
USCOpenDoubMichStHebert0Ramesh0TexasGuha-Majumdar0Makuch0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
USCJVSemiASUGill0Young0UNLVJallits0Tettamanti0AFF 2-1 (AFF)
BerkeleyOpenOctoUSCKaiser0Nhan0UNLVBato0Velto0NEG 3-0 (NEG)
BerkeleyOpenQurtUNLVBato0Velto0CSUFCarter0Thach0AFF 2-1 (NEG)
BerkeleyOpenSemiHarvardBolman0Suo0UNLVBato0Velto0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
CSUFOpen6Mo StFrederick28.5Gilmore28.3USCKaiser27.7Nhan27.4AFF
D1QualJVQurtUSCKaiser0Nhan0CSUFAlvarado0Su0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
D1QualJVSemiUSCKaiser0Nhan0ASUChotras0Rajan0AFF 2-1 (NEG)

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: