Judge Philosophies
Edwin Tiongson - IVC
<p> </p> <p><strong>EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE</strong></p> <p><strong>Background of the critic: </strong></p> <p>I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic. Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999.</p> <p><strong>Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): </strong></p> <p>I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge. Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention. </p> <p><strong>Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: </strong></p> <p>I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed. Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before.</p> <p><strong>Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: </strong></p> <p>I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations. Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case. I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets.</p> <p><strong>Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: </strong></p> <p>I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate.</p> <p><strong>Any additional comments: </strong></p> <p>This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds. I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience. If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round. All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches. Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW. All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture. I don’t time road maps but want them. </p> <p>Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.</p>
Gary Rybold - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold</p> <p> </p> <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>I debated for four years of high school and four years of college. I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges). Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds. Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity. My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know:</p> <p><strong>PREFERENCES – </strong>I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies). I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced). I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions. Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round. The key term for every team is justify. At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position. I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points. I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters. Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet. I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions.</p> <p><strong>CRITIQUES</strong> - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me). Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot.</p> <p><strong>SPEED – </strong>I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out. So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices.</p> <p><strong>ULTIMATE GOAL</strong> - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values. My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>