Judge Philosophies
Al Primack - Long Beach
<p><strong>Experience</strong>: About three years of parli. Half at a CC, half at a 4 year institution. I was more of a student and researcher than a debater though. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>General</strong>: I have changed my pedagogy on debate. I think forensics is primarily a competitive academic environment and the goal is for the ballot to be won through strategic argumentation. I will drop a team that advocates double win or double loss, but I will watch a round if a team concedes in favor of opening the space for dialogue because, at the end of the day, this is still an educational activity. </p> <p> </p> <p>I have wrist problems and I have learned through experience that I cannot handle fast rounds, period. If you have to ask if you are speaking too fast or think you may need to ask me for warnings about speed, then you are probably too fast for my hands to keep up. I have made bad decisions because of poor flows due to my inability to keep up, and no one is ever happy about that, especially myself. If you wish to speak fast, it is at your own risk.</p> <p> </p> <p>- If you are verbally aggressive toward your opponent, your speaker points will be dropped.</p> <p>- Speakers should prepare to take one question during their constructive speeches. If you take more that is fine, but I think taking one is important for increasing clarity in the round and improving clash.</p> <p>- I like highly organized debate. Like excessively organized. Be consistent with your labels. Don't switch from “My first argument is… the a-point is…” to "My second argument is, the <em>big A</em> is... the <em>little A </em>is..." etc. Also, tell me the specific argument you are responding to, not just the number of the argument you think you are responding to (we may flow differently). If organization is a problem for you, structure your arguments around the Toulmin Model and Four Point/Step Refutation.</p> <p>- Partner communication is fine, and I have a really high threshold for when I do not approve of it. As long as you are not verbally aggressive I am fine with a lot of partner communication (even though excessive partner communication may not be very strategic in many instances). </p> <p>- Unless it relates directly to an argument you are making, please don’t just randomly use the genocides of Native/Indigenous Americans or various peoples from WWII for a rhetorical flourish. This is a big pet peeve of mine. I don't like the genocidal deaths of my ancestors being used as a quick one-liner to support an argument that has nothing to do with their history, and in general it is bad argumentative practice to do this with any people's plight because the evidence isn't specific to the case at hand and these kinds of situations are often too specific and complex to be analogous to each other. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Style</strong>: I am open to all styles of argumentation, but most proficient in critical theory/performance and least proficient in theory and identity-based criticisms, but I recommend you do what you are strongest in and explain your arguments clearly in lay-person terms. I will say that I do not easily go for arguments that say one side cannot access the ballot because they debate in a different style; excluding performance, critical, and/or traditional styles makes little pedagogical sense in my book. If style becomes an issue, I recommend making arguments for prefering one style due to a net benefit at a meta-level and/or at the level of the topic rather than saying there is no space for a style of debate. This would provide better critical engagement. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Theory</strong>: I know the basics of topicality, trichot., counterplan, etc., but I rarely ran these arguments. Explain yourself clearly in general terms, do not rely on the jargon I default to permutations as tests of competitiveness unless articulated otherwise, and I also assume counterplans are conditional unless the negative team says so. I also really don’t like multiple CPs to come out in one round because organization and clarity tends to suffer.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Case</strong>: PMC’s should be very well organized with plenty of evidence and clear warrants, and it is unwise for an LOC to not touch case in most instances.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Performance</strong>: As a warning, most teams I judge tend to pander to me and try to run performance arguments, especially hip-hop, even if they are unfamiliar with that style, and I tend to drop most people who do this because they do not handle the arguments well. If you enjoy performance debate and are good at it then I am open to it, but I would rather watch you debate in a style you are proficient in and comfortable with. Be prepared to justify why your style of performance is beneficial for the round and, if applicable, for the topic. Also, don't use your performance style as a means of preventing the other team from having access to the ballot. Giving me reasons to prefer your style over the other team's performance style is generally better than saying "because they didn't perform in X style they cannot win this round." </p> <p> </p> <p>If you do performance debate, I am open to many orientations toward performance. With that said, I prefer debates where performance is utilized as part of a meta-argument regarding debate, understood as an alternative practice that has a net benefit to the topic that traditional styles of debate don’t have, that way it links to both the debate space and the topic.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Kritik</strong>: I love criticisms, but don’t just throw around jargon (e.g., deconstruction, aporia, Dasein, etc.). I am most comfortable with Marxism, Feminism, Critical Race Theory, and theories of Space/Place. I am not as well versed on Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, and a ton of the Post-Structuralists. However, if you can explain your argument clearly and plainly without being too reductive, then you should be fine. </p>
Ashley Furrell - CSUN
n/a
Gaby Hidalgo - CBU
Grant Tovmasian - Rio
<p>The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon) I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)</p>
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Juan Guerrero - Rio
Junior Ocasio - ISU
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>
Ryan Louis - Ottawa
n/a