2024 Dahlin Invitational

Palomar College - Nov 8 | Status: Completed | 8:53 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 8:53 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Tseng - PLNU

PSCFA: I'm not a communications critic. I will evaluate the debate in the most technically way possible. Debate as national circuit as possible if that matches your skillset. If you can't, I'll still do the best I can but both sides will like my decision more, the more national circuit you are.
TLDR: Read the arguments you want. I will flow and evaluate them. I will always vote on the execution of an argument rather than whether I think it is true or not. I have a slight preference for policy debates but I also like a well-executed Kritik debate. All of my preferences are just preferences and can be reversed through good debating.
Full Paradigm:
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Tech>Truth.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
Email chains are a big vibe:alexdebates109@gmail.com
My Decision Process:
Some habits in my decision process:
-I usually evaluate defense first, I usually vote for the least mitigated argument.
-I make the techiest decision, usually without explanation from the other team. I pay more attention to implications when left to my own devices.
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
Policy Paradigm:
Kritiks:
I am a mid judge for the kritik. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm probably the worst for the K on the alt. If you don't have a K that relies heavily on winning the thesis, you should focus on winning the alt the most. I don't think I'm in the automatically assuming that the alt doesn't do anything camp but I'm not deep enough into K lit to make extrapolations based on certain buzzwords or phrases. Referencing specific lines of aff evidence that show that the aff is the ideology you are Kritiking will go far. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Counterplans:
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
Disads:
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
Theory:
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
LD paradigm:
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
-My initial thoughts is that "Nebel" or "T: Whole Res" is a ridiculous argument. I think that it opens up the aff to all sorts of ridiculous PICs. However, I won't reject the argument on face but arguments about format distinctions between LD and Policy and justifications for why this interpretation pushes better solvency advocates will make this a more tenable argument when reading it in front of me.
Speaker Points:
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals

Allan Kofahl - Palomar

n/a

Angelica Baleryot - Palomar

n/a

Bill Neesen - IVC

I love debate and think it is an amazing teaching game.

I think that debaters should make it what they want and defend that with sound arguments.

Policy making, DA, K, T and other theory are all good.

I am addicted to my flow and try to decide off of it.

I am also called a speaker point meanie (K. Calderwood)

Some things you should know (not that I will not vote for them but I am sure my opinions have some effect even if I do not want them to)

I hate conditional arguments but do vote on them.

RVI's are just dumb and when I am forced to vote on them I will take speaker points.

Affs should relate at some level to the topic

IPDA

This is the same as parli. Given recent changes to local parli trying to make it ipda, I will view all limited prep debate as parli and will judge it that.

Brent Gozun - Palomar

n/a

Brittany Hubble - El Camino

TLDR:

Do what you want and make the debate space fun and educational. Don't be petty. Don't lie. Don't abuse flex time.  



BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino 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 in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

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 am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

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 cant 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 dont 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! Dont 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 dont 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. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. I tend to believe speaker points are arbitrary and tend to awards speaker points on the higher side. That being said, I reserve the right to punish teams for egregious behavior by deducting speaks.

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Dont 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. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 

Bryan Malinis - SD Mesa

What is your experience with speech and debate?

  • I have coached and judged 2-year and 4-year speech and debate since 2011. I coach all events: oral interpretation, platform, limited preparation, NPDA, and IPDA.

What does your ideal debate round look like?

  • An ideal debate round is one in which debaters 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. Insults will result in me dropping you or your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too!
  • For IPDA, treat me as a lay judge. I firmly believe IPDA is different from all other debate formats in that IPDA is intended for anyone. Do not treat this event like a Parli or LD round. Eliminate jargon. This is pure persuasion, as if we are all sitting at a dining table and each of you is trying to persuade me to take your side.

Is there anything you would like the debaters in your round to know about your judging preferences?

  • For NPDA/LD:
    • I am stock issues all the way! I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-articulated by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. I am not a fan of Kritiks.
    • 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 links, internal links, and impacts. Do not assume that I will make the argument/connection for you in my head. I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. Most important, give me clear voters.
  • For all debate types:
    • 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 comfortable with jargon and technical elements, though I am partial to a more straightforward, narrative debate style.
    • I time everything: roadmaps, thanks, etc.

Byron Jimenez - Palomar

n/a

Caitlin Drees - IVC

I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.

My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.

Caleb Wilson - Palomar

n/a

Carlos Tarin - UTEP

n/a

Cesar Morales - UCSD

n/a

Christiaan Pipion - IVC

  • First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
  • Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
  • Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
  • In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
  • If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiques after the round is finished, after my ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm happy to give you feedback then.
  • Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
  • Speed: I don't like it. I think speed gets in the way of clarity. If both opponents know each other, the debate format allows for it, and both debaters are comfortable, I'm happy to flow more quickly, but I will say "clear" or "speed" if I feel you're spreading your opponent out of the round.
  • Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
  • IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
  • Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Collin Ong - UCSD

n/a

Darrin Sahagon - PCC

I'm primarily an IE coach so please treat me like a lay judge and adjust accordingly.

Eric Walker - MSJC

n/a

Francesca Bishop - El Camino

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn.There arelots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, butI try notto 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, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (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, 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 been "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 or lie. In LD, I will read evidence, including that which the debaters don't read and will not give the ballot to debaters who misrepresent authors.

Because I try to base my decision based solely on argumentsthat are madein 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 conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true."In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game. As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!

BUT . . . if you are excessively rude or bullying, I will probably drop you.

2023 Update: after 3 yrs of competing and 23 years of judging, I have decided that I am over the k. My mindet has not changed; society has not changed. College students, who went through the application process, which by its nature excludes some, speaking for others has become old. I'm not saying I will never vote for a k again, but it will prob have to be different from the versions on a theme that I have heard for the last 30 years. Plus it's really killing parli which makes me sad. :/

Gavin Blomberg - Palomar

n/a

Harry Schulte - EPCC

I appreciate a well structured argument with appropriate references that are relevant and dated.

I appreciate a respectful exchange between parties that respects the other's viewpoint without being condescending for effect.

Delivery of arguments in a clear and concise public speaking tone that does not sacrifice clarity for speed is key.

Isabella leSure - PCC

n/a

Jacqueline Yu - PCC

Keep the debate clean and well structured. Provide a road map and be clear with the order of contentions, sub-points, evidence, etc. I want to be able to flow the debate with ease! 

I'm open to all arguments - the more clash the better. If an opponent drops an argument - do not let that be the sole reason for the judge to vote, still rationale the point made. 

For partner communication in parli, be careful of puppeteering. 

Please do not spread. Breathe! 

But most of all - 1) don't be rude 2) respect and be kind to those in the round (and in general, everyone), and 3) have fun! Bring that passion!

Jamielynn Go - SD Mesa

n/a

Joseph Evans - El Camino

  About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, 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. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.   

 

Framework/Role of the Ballot:  I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how its debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if its not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.  If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility. 

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.        

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.  I dont have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense). 

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmatives advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round. 

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell clear¢?. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, its a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.  

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 most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, dont assume I understand the literature.  Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally, 

Joseph Li - UCSD

n/a

Julian French - UCSD

n/a

Katya Azzam - SD Mesa

n/a

Kayla Mercure - Saddleback

Although my specialty is primarily in IEs, I have over 7 years of experience in forensics and debate.

I care most about quality of evidence and your arguments. I am particularly looking for strong LINKS. Don't force your judge/audience to do any of the work for you!

I do not appreciate spreading at all and I tend to drop those who do.

That being said...Be a good human! Be respectful! Have as much fun as you possibly can!

Konrad Hack - CUI

 

Lauren Park - UCSD

n/a

Linda Mae Aquino - SD Mesa

n/a

Marc Ouimet - Palomar

WHO AM I?

Marc Ouimet

What to call me: Marc

Pronouns: He/They

Where I coach: Palomar

Experience: Cumulatively 11 years mostly, with Palomar, grad coach at Beach, some time with SDSU and filled in minor commitments for Point Loma and UCSD in the before times. Ive also coached some high school and middle school students but not long-term. For debate, my primary focus for a long-time was NPDA, now its IPDA, but Ive also done policy and NFA-LD.

TL:DR

Be a presence in the round. I want to leave with an impression of you as a person, not just some rando on a ballot. Be good citizens and good to each other. Feel free to question anything, but back it up. Be more rigorous and more strategic.

BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

Overview: I want you to have a good time. I want to have a good time.

Basic structural concern: I have routinely asked debaters of all skill levels and debate events the past few years to talk more explicitly about solvency and impact calculus. If you are not doing these things, I think you are missing a basic component of how you construct your arguments and how they operate in the round. So, please develop your arguments with consideration of both in mind.

Accommodations / Speed: If you have additional needs from me or the tournament, more than happy to accommodate. If someone asks clear, speed, or pen time, please make the effort to include them in the round.

Procedurals / Burdens: I think debating the norms and supposed rules of a debate are a basic part of the debate. I will still hold them to a higher level of scrutiny than other arguments because I understand them as asking me to intervene which I am hesitant but not unwilling to do. I generally do not vote for teams just because they out-debate another team on a procedural, so plan the rest of your strategy accordingly. I dont find RVIs practically or theoretically compelling.

IPDA specific: I read the IPDA bylaws, IPDA best practices guidelines, and the tournament invite before writing this. I dont know where the community norm of not having a plan text or advocacy statement for policy rounds comes from, but it is not in the rules that such things are disallowed. I have seen too many rounds that are basically a planless policy, with no solvency claims, and the various burdens get muddled and would have been much more productive as either a value or if the Negative had clearer access to things like links and counterplans or alternative advocacies. I can respect the desire to maintain IPDA as stylistically different and less technically-oriented than other styles of debate, but I am tired of seeing bad debates of this fashion, and struggle to see their value pedagogically. So please, have advocacy statements if its a policy round.

Fact Resolutions: While I do think there are good fact rounds. In practice, Ive seen very few Ive enjoyed or that werent outright framed as tautologies by the Affirmative. Dont do that, I want to see a debate, not a logic chain of truth claims that go in a circle. If youre on the Negative and you think this applies, this is a glaring exception to my high threshold on procedural or burden arguments.

THINGS I AM MOST OFTEN ASKED ABOUT THAT I THINK ARE LESS IMPORTANT

Off-time road maps: I dont care, and think its a normal organizational heads-up. Off, then on does not make me feel like youre stealing time or whatever. Ideally, though, give me the order of the sheets youre addressing.

Partner communication: Cool. Ideally, no puppeting - youre not Jim Henson. I will only be flowing the speaker that Im giving notes to on the ballot, though.

THINGS THAT KIND OF ANNOY ME (AND YOU SHOULDNT DO ANYWAY)

Stealing prep: I get that some debaters have less experience and are not as routinized with the time constraints of their debate events, fine. However, dont waste our time finishing writing answers either after prep is over or between flex/c-x when that time is done, please.

Insincere Thank Yous: Sincere thanks, cool. If its a generic introduction, find a better, routinized way to start your speech.

Not Writing Down Feedback: If theres time and the tournament is allowing it, I am telling you how to win debate rounds and do better. Im here because I want to help your learn, Im not doing it just to hear myself talk. I dont know how this stopped being a community norm, because I think writing down judge feedback was insanely useful for me as a competitor and coach.

Aggressive Affect: Being passionate is cool. Sometimes being angry at the status quo is part of the speech, I get that. Havent seen it too much this year and Im glad, but if youre looking to rip your opponents head off at the end of every round, please chill and learn to approach rounds in a healthier, more productive manner.

Ignoring Preferred Pronouns: Havent really seen it at all this year, which is great. I think not knowing and getting it wrong once through assuming incorrectly is sorta shitty but excusable. Repeating the mistake is uncool.

Cross-Applications / Flowing Instructions: Dont just tell me to identify drops (Flow this through / This is conceded.) Tell me what that means for the argument and how it operates in the round.

Points of Order: Before anything else, prompt the speaker to stop time rather than just making your objection in the middle of their speech time. Otherwise, fine to call them. I think sometimes debaters call them too often and are not trying to gauge my impressions on the round. I also find most points of order to be irrelevant, but I will generally offer whether the point is well taken or not. Even on a panel, I think its fair to offer my impressions on a point of order to not waste the debaters time one way or the other.

THINGS I AM NOT OFTEN ASKED ABOUT BUT I WISH I WAS (WHAT WOULD I LIKE TO SEE)

Style: I am getting very little of debaters having a sense of style lately. Everyone feels the same. Not everyone needs to try to be funny, passionate, or flashy. There are tons of different ways to be expressive, but Im feeling like more debaters than usual in a given competitive year are going through rounds like its a job and not like they have any real interest in being there. Even just getting creative with tagging your contentions, please.

Getting Weird: To expand on the style point, I havent seen debaters question, alter, or break the format in a long time. Kritiks, if any, are usually now a framework versus policymaking discussion exclusively after the position is introduced which is definitely part of it, I get that, but also the most boring part. I never forced any of my students to debate like I did, and maybe your coaches will tell you to steer clear of this approach with bringing it up. But I danced, read poetry, employed sock puppets, claimed fairytale solvency, got theatrical in-round, and I miss seeing someone approach debates with the same idea that it could be anything. I miss it in my bones.

Weighing: I want more than just bigger body counts or likelihoods compared. Timeframe, particularly sequencing, I think is often underutilized. I also think the ability to weigh different types of calculus against one another is tremendously underutilized. It doesnt all have to be structural impacts but I find the construction of most flashpoint scenarios to be really poorly constructed, so at minimum give me a brink. Per my point at the top about basic structure, Im not seeing enough consideration of link and solvency differentials.

Counterplan Theory: I understand counterplans as needing to compete with the plan. I dont know where the old theory of the Negative being unable to affirm the resolution came back from, but I understand those ideas as outdated. PICs are smart and good, I have rarely found them abusive.

Permutation Theory: I have too many thoughts right now about perms that have been awakened and are probably not going to be relevant to any of the debates I see at CCCFA or Phi Rho Pi. Multiple perms are probably bad. I miss seeing perms as anything other than test of competition, but I also admittedly read a lot of bad, unstrategic perms when that was the case. My threshold for theory probably also dips a little bit lower on perms that are intrinsic or sever.

Framework / Kritiks: Postmodern bingo doesnt lead to class consciousness. Im going to be annoyed when your framework sheet leads to loose links or doesnt line up with the link sheet at all. Clarity and continuity in the concepts youre employing will take you farther than jamming in as five dollar words as possible. Build complexity in after youve established a solid base. Apply my aforementioned concerns about solvency here as well, re: your alt. If none of this seems like a concern and you arent trying to read any authors who serve better as memes than citations, I look forward to your arguments. Floating PIKs are bad, have solvency in the shell if thats what youre doing.

Positionality: Condo is fine in policy, but any other format, Id prefer dispo.

Mario Trasvina - Palomar

n/a

Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU

I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!

Nicholas Thomas - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Preeya Govil - UCSD

n/a

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

Richard Falvo - EPCC

My philosophy is focused on debaters speaking with great structure. I like to hear strong signposts and transitions. For IPDA debate, I prefer the 3 contentions format. I do not expect, nor do I condone "sweeping" or "speeding."

I expect competitors in IPDA debate to cite their sources, using an oral format consisting of Identity, Date, and Location for the source. I expect debaters, to focus on attacking the fallacies of reasoning of their competitors. I do not condone ad hominem attacks on fellow competitors. I also do not want my competitors to engage in personal experiences for their supporting material.

I also expect speakers to engage in the rebuttals of their competitors when ther are in the rebuttal phases of their respective rounds. The rebuttals should be separate from their case constructions.

In sum, I want the IPDA debaters to avoid the CEDA style of speaking (or in the CEDA tradition of reading word for word their cases and rebuttals at an alarming rate of 300 or more words per minute.

Additionally, it is important that a debater be clear and correct with words and word use. A debater's articulation of words (including effective enunciation and pronunciation) will build a stronger case for my understanding a debater's ideas.

A polished and smooth delivery (that is, stylistic Sophistry) will never replace the substance of ones content; and clearly is no guarantee of effective argumentation and debate. But, as a judge, I need to be able to process a debater's words and ideas. Therefore, the faster a debater speaks, the more difficult it may become to better understand their content.

On that same note, effective use of English makes it more likely that a debater's content will likely be understood. This (in turn) can strengthen the clarity of a debater's ideas. We know that people with perfect clarity and perfect command of English do not guarantee themselves success in debate. However, people who do not have adequate clarity or adequate command of English open themselves up to possible risks that their ideas might not be clearly understood, and place their reasoning and evidence (in short, their entire case) in danger.

Rylee Heumann - Palomar

n/a

Stephanie Bazan - Palomar

n/a