Amanda Garcia - MVCC Hired
Andrew Kuntz - MVCC Hired
Angelica Krizka - MVCC Hired
Bill Lucio - Harper College
I value good sportsmanship, logical reasoning, and articulate arguments in debate. I personally enjoy debates that focus the debate on the resolution, rather than the definitions of a round. Speakers who speed through their argument or spend their time slandering their opponent will not be rewarded. Challenge yourself by teaching me something new or getting me to think about a particular topic in another way. Focus on the fun. When you're having fun, I am having fun.Ã???Â
Regarding individual events, speakers should engage in appropriate delivery strategies when performing Platform events, such as proper pronunciation and clarity of words, a wide range of vocal variety, and natural use of gestures. While the overall delivery of a speech weighs heavily in my decision, I also tend to prioritize organization and flow, as well as creativity in topic choice. I'm a firm believer in creative content, but also respect solid and identifiable transitions. Do not go overtime.Â
In other individual events, such as Interp, I expect the speaker to fully embody their characters. Take risks, think outside of the box, and use your body and movement in ways that aren't necessarily obvious or overdone. While the argument articulated in an introduction does play a major role in my overall decision, I value a performance that takes me out of this world and puts me into a new one, so really become your character and "own" the world in which they live in. Do not go overtime.Â
Lastly, regarding Limited Prep events, I really respect a good, clean delivery, that utilizes all the tools of basic public speaking (organization, variety of examples/sources, confidence in speaking voice, engagement with the audience, etc.). I do not want to hear a "canned" speech, challenge yourself! If I feel like I have heard your speech before, or that the interpretation of your quotation is too much of a stretch, I will most likely reward the other speakers who placed a more creative emphasis on their speech. Students competing in LP events should be constantly reading the news and searching for examples, so i want to see some interesting things I haven't seen before. Do not go overtime, ESPECIALLY if I am giving you time signals throughout the entire speech.
Bonnie Gabel - McHenry
Brett Krivich - MVCC Hired
Carey Millsap-Spears - MVCC Hired
Crii Cox - McHenry
Eric Mishne - CU Forensics
Ethan Gallant - MVCC Hired
Evan Kirksey - SBU
Floyd McConnell - SJC
I am an old school judge.Ã? I am looking for authentic communication skills.Ã? These include the following:
1.Ã? No spreading-- I want to hear clear and normal speaking speeds.Ã? I know we get anxious at times, keep it to where the average person can understand you.Ã? It gives me a headache, I don't want to listen to it.Ã? I will say "clear" once. That is your signal to slow down after that, I am no longer following your arguments.Ã? Ã?
2.Ã? Please polite to your opponent.Ã? Rudeness will not be acceptable.Ã? Ã?
3.Ã? I realize we are in "Space," however please make sure you are wearing something you would wear to a job interview.Ã? Most of us only have to be dressed from the waist up.Ã? At least make that effort, even if it is from your place of residence.Ã? Ã?
4.Ã? Argumentation:Ã? I am open to all arguments, as long as they are organized.Ã? I love a great debate, stay organized, on point and signpost.Ã? Please don't me work hard for your ballot.Ã? Ã?
5.Ã? I prefer if you are on camera when you are not speaking.Ã? Ã? Let's not be looking down at phones... etc..Ã? It is really obvious.Ã? Ã?
For policy I love the stock issues. As for Kritiks, No. This communicates to me you have no arguments. I have only seen/ heard 2 great K arguments in 25 years.
Have a great tournament!!!
Harry Bodell - Highland
Jeff Przybylo - Harper College
Public debate should be accessible by any member of the public. To observe or adjudicate, audience members do not need to possess any special knowledge or experience in debate. IPDA is designed to be observed by the public.
In all forms of debate, eloquence in delivery is important.
I believe debaters should speak to each other with respect, enthusiasm, and a positive attitude towards the exercise of debating IDEAS.
Debate is an exercise in presenting and supporting ideas. It is not a war.
Debates should be focused on the positive exchange of ideas. I find debates about debate utterly boring.
For individual events, I value creativity. Go ahead and break the "rules." As long as what you are doing serves the literature/topic I value what you are doing. I believe that public performance is art. Let your creativity flow!
Public address events should be well organized, well researched, creative, and eloquently delivered.
Interp events are creative performances. I do not believe that there necessarily needs to be a stated "argument." I believe that performances that portray strong characters and evoke an emotional response have great value. I value an emotional journey and entertainment over the presentation of some sort of overtly stated "argument." As I stated above, public performance is a form of art. What you make me FEEL and what I learn about the human condition is much more important to me and following through on a contrived "argument" stated in your introduction. Be artistic.
In the limited preparation events, I value eloquent delivery, supported claims, and an organized message. The format or approach is less important to me. As long as what you are doing is clear and makes sense, I promise to have an open mind.
Jennifer Gutierrez - MVCC Hired
John Stanley - Noctrl
Katie Thomas - NSU
Kelly Bressinelli - MVCC Hired
Leslie Nuñez - Noctrl
Liz Drogos - MVCC Hired
Margaret Bilos - Harper College
I believe an IPDA debate should be a structured discussion between two people who may disagree about a topic but are respectful, thoughtful, friendly, and conversational.Ã?Â It should be viewed more as a well-reasoned, well-delivered philosophical disagreement that anyone can judge rather than a highly specialized format.Ã?Â I would rather hear you disagree over the arguments and claims rather than hear you debate about debate.Ã?Â Ã?Â
I like to imagine that we all went out to dinner and cracked open a fortune cookie.Ã?Â One of you agreed and the other disagreed and you talked and argued, bringing up examples and points.Ã?Â After fifteen minutes or so, I said one of you won and we all enjoyed dessert.
In public address, I am looking for connection to audience, an interesting topic, solid delivery, convincing research, and credible support.Ã?Â
For interpretation events, I am hoping to be drawn into the story, the drama, and the character that you are creating.Ã?Â The best performers might not teach us a lesson, but they can sweep us up into a beautiful moment.Ã?Â I am less concerned with rigid rules and conventions if what you're doing makes sense and adds something to the piece and character.Ã?Â Ã?Â
In limited preparation events, I am looking for a speech with good structure, interesting arguments, and eloquent delivery.Ã?Â If you are thoughtful and clean, I am hoping to learn something new or see it in a new way.
Overall, be creative, be friendly, be conversational, be expressive, be in the moment!Ã?Â Ã?Â I'm looking for creativity, passion, energy and for you to put me at ease.Ã?Â My favorite speakers, in all events, makes the audience feel like a valued part of the conversation.Ã?Â Ã?Â If you are having a good time- we will have a good time!
Natalie Jurcik - MVCC Hired
Nick Matthews - Cerritos
Hello! I am a coach at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:
- I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a
conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the
dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe
20% of what you are saying, which is not conductive to your
chances of winning.
- My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan
to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As
a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans,
procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at
judging. DonÃ¢t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with,
but my understanding of straight-up debate is a hell of a lot stronger than my
understanding of K debate.
- I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative impact calculus,
and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
- I rarely vote for arguments I donÃ¢t understand.
- I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may
vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will
likely defeat them.
- My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
- Whining: Ã¢Their implementation is vague and they donÃ¢t explain it! They
donÃ¢t solve!Ã¢?Â (Waaah!)
- Argument: Ã¢I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines
- The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement
with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
- I donÃ¢t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half their speech to them.
You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.
Rizamae Enriquez - MVCC Hired
Sam Johnson - MVCC Hired
Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry
Taylor Corlee - SBU