2017 Aztec-Mills Swing (Part 1)
Palomar (hosting at Palomar) - Oct 6 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Aaron Fullman - Long Beach
n/a
Adriena Young - APU
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - PLNU
<p>Overview: I am a flow critic and believe that debate, although it has numerous benefits outside of competition, is at its core a game. <br /> Specific Arguments: Run what you want but I enjoy econ, politics and procedural positions. I accept both competing interpretations and abuse paradigm but you have to be the one to tell me how to evaluate the position. I enjoy the K but do not just name a theorist or throw out tag lines without explaining what they mean. There are thousands of authors who have multiple publications that sometimes even contradict themselves as time goes by so make sure you reference a specifc argument so that I can follow along. I have no preference between Kritikal or straight up debate but I did write my MA utilizing critical methodologies and am focussing my current research on Rhetorical Criticisms with a focus on critical gender studies. Run your K's but make sure you repeat your alt text, your ROB, and perms.<br /> Speed: I am fine with speed but don't intentionally exclude your oponents. Please repeat all texts, advocacies, ROB's, interps, etc. <br /> Closing Remarks: Be kind to one another. Be respectful and use warrants. I am fine with high magnitude low probability impacts as long as there is a clear well warranted explanation of how we got there. That being said, I will vote where you tell me to so make sure that you use your rebuttals to summarize the debate and not as another constructive.</p>
Ashley Johnson - Biola
Ben Soleim - Lewis & Clark
Caleb Moore - PLNU
<p><strong>Pronouns: He, Him, His</strong></p> <p><strong>TL;DR: You do you. </strong></p> <p><strong>I competed in four years of high school policy in KS and then 4 years of parli at Point Loma. I believe that it is my job as a critic to adjudicate the round that the debaters want to have without bias; although, I know this is easier said than done, so here are some specific feelings I have about things:</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Delivery/Partner Communication: Speed can have two functions. It can add depth to a debate in a way that positively contributes to the competitive nature of the activity, or it can be used as a tool of exclusion to cheaply win ballots. If it is the former then I am all about it. The latter will lose you a lot of speaks. For partner communication, parli is a partnered activity, as long as there isn’t parroting it isn’t a problem. I will only flow the argument that the person speaking says. </strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Please read all texts, interps/counter-interps, and perms slowly and twice. If you want to, it would also be helpful to just write me a copy; although, I understand if that takes you away from your flow for too long.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Case: Case debate is tragically underutilized. I am not saying you have to go 8 minutes of case out of the LOC (but hey it’s super fun to do that), but teams often don’t dedicate enough time to generating offence against the PMC. I think that is a mistake. </strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>The K: I ran the K in about half of my rounds while debating. If this is your preferred strategy, I encourage you to go for it. All I ask is that you don’t assume that I know your literature, to be honest I probably don’t. I can’t vote for a position I don’t understand. It is very important to me that you explain exactly how the alternative functions, what a world of the alternative looks like, and how the alternative resolves the links. That means that solvency isn’t a good time to just throw out jargon and be vague/generic. On the aff, I feel like K affs are a legitimate strategy. Resolutions often only seek to reform or uphold structures that are oppressive to large populations of people. For this reason, I understand why people feel uncomfortable defending the state; however, don’t think that just because I am sympathetic to the importance of the K Aff that I will ignore a well articulate Framework argument. Justify why your framework comes first and why there is not a topical version of the aff you are running.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Performance Arguments: If you want to run a performance based position that’s fine, but I don’t love positions where the performance itself is the advocacy. If you are running a performance, please give me a concrete advocacy or statement of method to vote for. Someone sharing their narrative, poetry, or performing requires an amount of vulnerability that is not usually present in a debate round. It is important to honor that vulnerability and recognize that their narrative specifically isn’t up for debate (like, don’t be that person that impact turns a narrative). A narrative can garner some unique solvency but to vote for/against someone on the basis of their narrative and its specific ability to solve feels like a unique form of ontological violence. A concrete advocacy makes the debate about the method and not about the person and both gives the other team access to method based offense and doesn’t put the judge in a position where their ballot affirms or denies the ontological existence of a debater.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Topicality: T is fun. Don’t be afraid of T. I default to competing interpretations, but am open to other ways to frame the position. I believe that T is always A-priori (in a straight up debate) but I still want you to say it. I don’t need articulated abuse but it does make the argument a lot more persuasive.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Theory/Procedurals: I don’t have a lot of predispositions on theory. I am up for pretty much any theory you might want to run and should be relatively unbiased when evaluating it. For things like SPECS my threshold is a little bit higher. It becomes harder for me to vote for these arguments if there is no articulated abuse.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>CP’s: I understand why cheater CP’s are super abusive, but I also think they are really fun. I think it is probably important that a team be able to defend the entirety of their aff, including the timeframe, actor, and each part of the bill, but I also understand how difficult it is to generate offense against these positions. PICS, delay, and consult are all fine to run in front of me, but be ready for the theory debate.</strong></p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Chathi Anderson - CSUF
n/a
Christiaan Pipion - Long Beach
n/a
Christopher Leland - APU
n/a
Claire Crossman - Concordia
Cody Campbell - Glendale CC
Deven Cooper - Long Beach
n/a
Diego Perez - Concordia
Fernanda De La O - APU
n/a
Heather Noonan - Palomar
Holland Smith - CSULA
Jason Edgar - Palomar
<p>Background: DOF at San Diego State University. Been involved with Policy Debate in some capacity since 1996. I default to a Comparative Advantage framework unless told otherwise. You can run anything in front of me as long as it is structured well. I don't connect dots for you, and I don't flow well if you speed poorly. The faster you go, the more clear I expect you to be. 24-30 speaker points with most congent arguers typically getting higher speaks. Please do lots of impact calculation in the rebuttals. Lots of clarity and clash is expected from all competitors. In the end, do what you want and have fun. If you be polite, give a strong effort, and respect my decision making, we will have the best round of the day. Email me if you have further questions jedgar@sdsu.edu</p>
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC
<p>4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.</p>
Lane Schwager - CSULA
n/a
Lisa Mae Hobson - Palomar
Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC
Malcolm Gamble - CSUF
n/a
Matthew Minnich - UTEP
n/a
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>I am a traditional debate theorist. I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years. I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument. </p> <p>Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus. If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate.</p> <p>Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all. It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others. Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed. Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me. The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds. Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly. The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better. Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech. Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances. My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus. I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation.</p> <p>Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win.</p> <p>Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric. If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose. Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc. If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory". The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there. We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries. We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments. The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Michael Brooks - UTEP
<p>I believe debate can most effectively be thought of as a communication event; as such, ideas and arguments in a debate round become most accessible and finally, most persuasive, if stated clearly, utilizing a comprehensible rate of speed and without undue dependence on jargon. Clear signposting and effective organization throughout the debate enhances the clarity of argument. Consistent signposting creates a clean flow, with major arguments prominent in the mind of your judges. I tend to vote on the flow. I’m open to any strategy as long as it is explained well, organized clearly and makes sense. I use a tabula rasa approach as a judge, so don’t worry about what I may or may not believe in <em>re</em> whatever proposition is being debated, or what rhetorical strategies and/or debate conventions you choose to utilize. I enjoy a well-crafted and intellectually satisfying argument on any topic, from any viewpoint. Clash is the heart of debate, so keep on point. Please remember the value of transitions reinforcing the organization you’ve established throughout the round, and don’t forget to spend appropriate time on summary, most specifically in rebuttals. A strong rebuttal traces the evolution of the most important arguments used in the debate, showing how and why your version of the proposition should prevail. I do caution you against the use of offensive language or actual rudeness toward your opponents. NPDA debate should be an exercise not only in communication, but in the practice of good ethics in this formalized and rather ritualistic exchange of ideas. Wit and humor are appreciated, if you have the occasion to use such strategies.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Michael Catlos - Lewis & Clark
Nick Stump - Palomar
<p>Background/General:<br /> My name is Nick Stump I competed 4 years at Northern Arizona University in NPDA<br /> and LD and three years directly coaching HS/college. I think the biggest thing I<br /> wanted as a competitor was a judge that would be open minded and intent on listening<br /> and letting the debaters have the round they want to have. I want to see what makes<br /> you the best you rather than feeling pinned to having a particular format. I try to be<br /> approachable about questions and am willing to see anything from traditional policy-<br /> oriented debates to performance; the round is yours to debate.<br /> What wins rounds:<br /> I will vote on almost any argument, tabula rasa, but what wins is framing and<br /> comparative analysis of impacts, solvency, and link differentials. Weighing is<br /> wonderful, I prefer weighing material impacts than nebulous claims. Please read all<br /> interpretations on theory and texts of plan/cp/alts twice OR SLOW DOWN. Decorum:<br /> I don’t care if you sit or stand when debating. I am not here to criticize your clothes.<br /> I’m here to evaluate arguments.<br /> Section 2: Specifics.<br /> 1. Speaker points: I like humor, but prefer people being real.<br /> 2. K’s:<br /> YES! I mostly read K’s in debate, both sides of the rez. I extremely prefer topic<br /> specific criticisms and critical impact framing to generics plug-in or rejecting topics<br /> outright. I think the weakest point of a criticism is the alternative/solvency, and<br /> generally think it’s better to just engage than shy away from answering them. If you<br /> read jumble-word- salad k’s that morph in the block, please strike me. I don’t like<br /> when people read multiple contradicting strategies or kick out of the alternative.<br /> 3. Performance-based arguments:<br /> Not my favorite, but explain what your performance is and why that<br /> necessarily/important to framing the debate round.<br /> 4. Theory:<br /> I enjoy theory when it is done right, but bad theory just sounds like whining. I don’t<br /> know how to quantify education, do that for me. Tell me what ground you should<br /> have had. Contextualizing theory to the round and what your opponents have done<br /> especially goes a long way. Tell me whether it is reasonability framing or competition<br /> interpretations. I don’t generally err either side on theory, I prefer creative affirmative<br /> interpretations to outright rejection. Consult is probably bad. One conditional CP is</p> <p>usually fine, but don’t read contradictory strategies, and you probably don’t get to<br /> sever yourself out of offensive things said.<br /> 5. Counter plans/DA:<br /> Anything goes! I prefer clear brinks and terminalized impacts with timeframe<br /> analysis. Please don’t read consult. Secretly 8 minutes of case turn in the LOC is my<br /> favorite debate. I generally prefer depth over breath. I prefer creative affirmative<br /> interpretations to outright rejection of pmc.<br /> 6. Permutations:<br /> Bad perm debate makes my head hurt, depth and developing your argument here helps<br /> a lot.<br /> 7. Speed:<br /> Debaters who sacrifice clarity for speed disappoints me. Don’t expect me to know<br /> your blocks. I don’t like speed used as a tool to exclude your opponent, but often find<br /> anti-speed procedurals have an arbitrary bright line without indicting the performance<br /> of the other team. That being said the fastest debater does not always win the round,<br /> but often does because of comparisions. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.</p>
Paxton Attridge - Concordia
Ron Newman - MSJC
n/a