2023 MJC Intramural Speech Tournament

Modesto Junior College - Dec 8 | Status: Completed | 11:39 AM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 11:39 AM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   Results

Judge Philosophies

Barbara Adams - Prof Adams

n/a

Brandon Reis - MJC

To me, the most important thing in any debate round is everyone being respectful. If someone is being rude, petty, or condescending then there are almost no circumstances where I will vote for them even if they are "winning" the debate. Debate is meant to be educational and fun, rudeness accomplishes neither.

Roadmaps are appreciated and can be done off time. I don't mind the use of jargon; however I don't like speed. I believe it is the debater's job to effectively communicate their arguments and if you speak too fast, don't articulate your points, or jump around a lot I will miss things and that could affect how I vote. I will default to net benefits if a weighing mechanism isn't provided in a round. I will follow the flow to a point. It won't win my vote if one side attempts to run a hundred different arguments in an attempt to bury their opponent and then only focus on the arguments that were "dropped." Have fun with your round and maybe we'll all learn something new!

Cyndle Hillis - MJC

hello! Im an MJC student and i am a competitor as well. i compete in parli, ipda, impromptu, and extemp! here is what you should know if im your judge:
IPDA DEBATE: please dont spread, if i cant understand you then its hard for me to judge you. also please be nice to your opponents, although clash can be good, you need to remember being nice to them is important while you do it. l am definitely okay with off time roadmaps as i would like to know where youre heading ! Make sure to convince me how and why you have won the debate in your last speech. goodluck, and have fun!
PARLI DEBATE: i love parli! when doing these rounds, please make sure to be respectful to the other team throughout the debate. I am okay with partner communications if its brief and QUIET, do not talk loud while the other team is presenting. passing notes to your partner is okay. also jargon is nice and off time roadmaps are very much appreciated.
LIMITED PREP EVENTS: For impromptu and extemp, i will do time signals and confirm with you before hand, make sure you are speaking very clear and passionate. have fun and be yourself! (humor is always encouraged)
OTHER IE EVENTS: Please remember to be yourself and have fun, get yourself situated before u present. speak clearly so the audience and i can understanding and hear you.

Eve Dowdell - MJC

n/a

Kim Gyuran - MJC

n/a

Kyle Stubbs - Prof Stubbs

n/a

Maag Domingo - MJC

n/a

Ryan Guy - MJC

Hey everyone!
Im Ryan Guy from Modesto Junior College. Im excited to see your debate skills and hope we can create a welcoming, educational, and (yes!) enjoyable environment. Below is how I typically approach judging. If anythings unclear or you have questions, just ask. Im here to help!

Video Recording & Online Tournaments

  • In-person: I often carry a camera. If youd like me to record your debate, ask your opponent(s) for permission first. If everyone agrees, Ill upload the video as an unlisted YouTube link and share it via a short URL on my ballot.
  • Online: I can screen-capture the round under the same conditionall debaters must approve.

I never want anyone to feel pressured. If anyone isnt okay with recording, no worrieslets just have a great round!

A Little About Me

  • I debated NPDA at Humboldt State in the mid-2000s.
  • Since 2008, Ive coached Parli, NFA-LD, IPDA, a bit of BP, and CEDA.
  • I teach college classes in argumentation, debate, public speaking, etc.

I genuinely enjoy the educational side of debatewhere we exchange ideas, sharpen our thinking, and learn from each other.

How I See Debate

1. Sharing Material

  • If youre in NFA-LD, please post your arguments on the case list.
  • Use SpeechDrop.net to share files in NFA-LD and Policy.
  • If you only use paper, thats okayjust be sure I have a copy so I can follow along. If not, try to keep your delivery at a relaxed pace so I catch everything.

2. Speed

  • Please keep it clear. If you see me squinting, looking confused, or if someone calls clear, please slow down a touch.
  • If I have a copy of your evidence, Im more comfortable with moderate speed. If not, Ill need you to slow down so I can accurately flow your arguments.

3. Procedurals & Theory

  • Im totally fine with procedural arguments or theory debates, as long as you explain the abuse or violation clearly.
  • If you dont show me why it matters, I might not weigh it.
  • I usually default to net benefits unless you give me a different framework.

4. Kritiques

  • I lean toward policy-making approaches, but youre welcome to run Ks. Just note:
    • Im not deeply immersed in every authors work.
    • Please break it down and educate everyone involved.
    • Going too quickly on a K might cause me to miss essential details.

5. Organization & Engagement

  • Let me know where youre going in your speech (road-mapping).
  • If you jump around, thats okayjust be explicit about where we are on the flow.
  • Directly engaging each others points is always more compelling than ignoring or glossing over them.
  • Good humor and wit are awesomemean-spiritedness is not. I notice and reward kindness and clarity in speaker points.

6. Oral Critiques

  • If the tournament schedule allows, Im happy to share thoughts after the round. If they prefer we wait, Ill respect that and offer feedback later on if youd like to chat.

7. Safety & Well-being

  • Debate is an educational activity. I never want anyone to feel unsafe.
  • If a serious issue arises that threatens anyones well-being, Im likely to pause the round and involve the tournament director.

IPDA Notes

  • Signposting: Please label your arguments (advantages, disadvantages, contentions, etc.) so we can all follow your flow.
  • Policy Resolutions: If its a policy resolution, FIAT a plan (agent, mandates, enforcement, funding). The IPDA textbook explicitly says so, and its clearer for everyone.
  • Evidence: You have 30 minutes of prepuse it to gather sources. Let me see or hear your evidence. Solid citations build credibility.
  • Theory/Procedural Arguments: If you need to run these, just do it in a conversational style. IPDA is meant to be accessible to all.
  • Avoiding Drops: Please address each others points. When theres good clash, the round becomes more dynamic and educational.
  • Style: IPDA is a public-friendly format. Keep jargon to a minimum and be mindful of speed.

How I Decide Rounds

  • Tell Me Why You Win: By the end, I should know what key arguments or impacts lead you to victory.
  • Impact Calculus: Connect your arguments to real-world or in-round impacts.
  • Clean Up: If a bunch of arguments go untouched, thats less persuasive. Guide me to the crucial points and weigh them.
  • Clarity Over Speed: If you speak too quickly and I cant follow, its your loss, not mine.

Specifics for NFA-LD

  1. File Sharing

    • SpeechDrop.net is my favorite toolfaster and more organized.
    • If not possible, email me at ryanguy@gmail.com or use a flash drive.
    • Paper-only is cool if you provide copies for everyone (including me), or else go a bit slower so I can keep up.

  2. Disclosure

    • I support posting cases on the NFA-LD caselist.
    • If its not a new Aff, get it up there; otherwise, you might face theory arguments about accessibility and predictability.
    • Teams that openly disclose help everyone prep better, and I appreciate that.

  3. Cardless LD

    • I find it questionable. If your opponent argues its abusive, I might vote on that if well-explained.

Speaker Points

  • Typically, I score between 2630 (or 3640 in IPDA).
  • Youll see higher points if youre clear, organized, respectful, and genuinely engaging with the round.

Topicality

  • Please make an honest effort to be topical.
  • T debates are fine. Show me proven or articulated abuse, and Ill vote that way if you can win the sheet.
  • Im not a fan of random, squirrely cases that dodge the resolution.

In Closing

I love debate because its a chance to learn, clash respectfully, and become better communicators. Bring your best arguments, speak clearly, and show each other (and me) some kindness and respect. If you do that, I promise Ill do my best to give you a fair and educational experience.

Looking forward to hearing your ideasgood luck, have fun, and lets do this!

Tiffany Ellington - Prof Ellington

n/a

Tristan Ceja - MJC

I am a Modesto Junior College student that competes in IPDA, Impromptu, and Parli so those are the ones that I'm most familiar with. Overall make sure to have fun and be civil with your fellow competitors. Below are some of my more specific philosophies.
IPDA:
I believe that the purpose of debate is to engage in a civil and respectful exchange of ideas. The goal of debate is to persuade the judge, not to win at all costs. I believe that debaters should be judged on their ability to think critically, to research effectively, and to communicate their ideas clearly and persuasively. Debaters should be respectful of their opponents, even when they disagree with them. I believe that debate is an important educational tool that can help students to develop their critical thinking, research, and communication skills.
I will judge each debate round fairly and impartially, based on the criteria outlined above. I will not be swayed by personal biases or opinions. I will listen carefully to both sides of the argument and give each team a fair opportunity to present their case. I will base my decision on the evidence that is presented and the arguments that are made. I will not be influenced by the charisma or popularity of the debaters.
In IPDA specifically, I want there to be clear arguments made. It should not be like LD or Parli as there is less time to communicate your ideas so I prefer less jargon. This is about persuasion, not strictly argumentation.
Parli:

Here are some considerations that I will keep in mind when judging parliamentary debate rounds:

  • Clarity and conciseness:I will consider how clearly and concisely each team presents their arguments. I will also consider how well each team answers questions from the judge and the other team.
  • Evidence:I will consider the quality and quantity of evidence that each team presents. I will also consider how well each team uses evidence to support their arguments.
  • Relevance:I will consider how relevant each team's arguments are to the resolution. I will also consider how well each team addresses the arguments of the other team.
  • Organization:I will consider how well each team organizes their arguments. I will also consider how well each team transitions from one argument to the next.
  • Style:I will consider the style of each team's presentation. I will consider how well each team uses language, tone, and body language to communicate their ideas.

Ultimately, I will decide the winner of each debate round based on which team I believe has done the best job of persuading me of their point of view. I will do this by considering all of the factors listed above, as well as any other factors that I deem relevant.

LD:
Including the above considerations, here are some considerations that I will keep in mind when judging Lincoln Douglas debate rounds:
  • Framework: I will consider how well each debater constructs their framework. I will consider how well each debater defines their terms, identifies their values, and articulates their criterion.
  • Unique Perspectives: I will consider how well each debater offers unique perspectives on the resolution. I will consider how well each debater challenges conventional wisdom and offers new ways of thinking about the resolution.
  • Personal Investment: I will consider how well each debater invests themselves in their arguments. I will consider how well each debater conveys their passion for the resolution and their commitment to their position.
I have previously done Lincoln Douglas debate in High School, and as such I am familiar with the style. However, it has been a while since I have participated in LD so I will be open to your stylistic choices. Overall I enjoy debates run with good evidence and solid interpretation to put that evidence into perspective for me.
I enjoy debate and individual events as I currently compete in both styles. I want everyone to have an enjoyable time and never be angry with their opponents. This is meant to be a civil exchange of ideas, don't be rude simply because you disagree with theirs.