2018 Paul Winter's Invitational
University of the Pacific - Nov 3-4 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Alex Paez - Delta
n/a
Andrew Morgan - UOP
Andrew Morgan - UOP
Basil Hawley - Lewis & Clark
Daniel Armbrust - Nevada
? ? COWARDICE IS A VOTING ISSUE.
TL;DR- I don't care what you read, just give me a reason to vote for you.
DISCLAIMER- AN important note before you keep reading, discussion of mental health is important, but I have discovered that in the past few years I cannot really handle those discussions very well in debate. Please avoid those arguments as much as possible for my sake. IF the topic asks you to run arguments discussing mental health, that cannot be avoided and is fine. I appreciate a warning in advance if you plan on running arguments discussing mental health. Thank you!
Section 1: General Info
I debated for the University of Nevada from 2012-2017. My final year I was 8th speaker at the NPDA and 2nd seed out of prelims. As a debater I ran anything from spec to high theory criticisms. The only argument I refused to read because I think it is cheating unless you can use cards is Delay Counterplans. That being said I have voted for a disgusting number of Delay counterplans. Run what you want, I don't really care as long as you give me a reason to vote for you.?Â
Section 2: Specific Questions
1. Speaker points
As of right now I range from approximately 26-30. I think speaker points are arbitrary and often tend to be higher if you know the people in the room so I usually trend higher in order to off balance my inherent bias.
2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? can affs run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be "contradictory" with other neg positionsÂ
Let me put it like this, in the last two years of debate, I ran a K every neg round I could. In the 2015-16 season I only had 3 rounds the entire year that did not involve a criticism. I think critically framed arguments are not only good but on occasion necessary. For affs, its a bit of a different story, Framework I think is a convincing argument in some situations but leaves a bad taste in others. FOR ALL CRITICISMS AFF OR NEG, all i really need is a thesis of some kind (I haven't read a bunch of different authors so I need something to like understand) and a reason to vote for you.?Â
3. Performance arguments
Some of the best affs I have ever seen were performance based. Shout out to Quintin Brown (from Washburn if you don't know him) for reading some of the best and most persuasive performance arguments I have ever seen. Just be prepared to answer Framework.?Â
4. Topicality- For the aff, to avoid T, all you have to do is be topical. I prefer nuanced and educational T debates, not just throw away debates that are really there as a time suck. I am almost never persuaded by an RVI. AND if you decide to go for an RVI, it better be the ENTIRE PMR. For T to be persuasive, it needs an interp, violation, standards, voters.?Â
5. Counterplans- Pics good or bad? should opp identify the status of CP? perms-- text comp ok? functional compÂ
uhh, PICs are good as long as they are able to be theoretically defended. Theory against CPs is something I did as an MG all the time, it just might not be a great strat if there is an easy DA against the CP. I think that most people should run CPs that functionally competitive unless you have a REALLY good reason why your text comp needs to happen in this instance (for example a word PIC that changes the word run with a reason why that specific word is bad). Just clarify the status when you read it.?Â
6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round?
Dont care.
7. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed how do you compare abstract impacts against concrete impactsÂ
If i have to do this, I will be angry with you. You do the weighing and it will not be a problem :)
Random thoughts:?Â
I love the Bee Movie, Conspiracy theories, and really wonky arguments.
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Hal Sanford - Santa Rosa JC
Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College
What are your expectations for proper decorum from the
debaters? In round, be nice to each other, be
civil. Don't
belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or
dumb. Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than
you. Do you want the karma and curse that comes with being a bully?
Seriously?! You are smarter than that,
better than that!
Short Version: I'm a stock issues judge, not fond of Ks,
although a summer debate camp and years of creative students have made me more receptive,
if run well. Thank you Joe Allen. I'll vote for the team displaying
the preponderance of persuasion, theoretical ties going to the negative.
Long Version: Some debaters may want more. Here's
more. Remember, being electronic, its length does not link to damaging
environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the
philosophy.
What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a
debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow.
AFFIRMATIVE: Make sure you are topical. Reasonable
definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best." I
feel constraining the affirmative to the “best” definition removes their right
to define and preparation time. However,
negative ground must be provided within the affirmative definition. I once saw a debate where an affirmative
team’s definitions attempted to lock the negative into defending female
circumcision, on children, against their will, in unsanitary conditions, with
loss of sexual function. Uh, that is
not reasonable ground.
In policy rounds, show me a post-plan world is better than one
defended by the negative. Weigh impacts. If ten people die in
Cleveland, that may outweigh a ski-billionth of a percent chance of extinction
and/or nuclear war. Show your solution
is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s).
In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and
illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or
criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.
NEGATIVE: In policy, raise topicality only if it is a
genuine issue. Too often negatives think they are being clever with
"time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative
loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or
developing a disadvantage. Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental;
show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus
C/P. Explain how the affirmative plan does not solve the problem or is
not workable.
In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your
criteria are superior to the affirmative's in relation to the resolution.
Weigh societal impacts under each competing criteria, showing how your interpretation
leads to a better world. Finally, if the
affirmative must prove primacy of one object (e.g., security) over another (e.g.,
privacy), the negative should claim the win upon demonstrating object equality
or reversed primacy.
What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote? Stock Issues: In policy debate, these are key for me. Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win. Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution. Affirmative must win all four to win round. Stock issues are:
1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s)
justify an affirmative ballot.
Topicality: Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors
are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued
by negatives. You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me
buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a
negative drop, I'll really resist.
Counter plans: It should be non-topical; otherwise, there
are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one
actually listed as affirmative. I am probably in the minority here, but
that is my view. CPs should be
competitive, meaning there is a genuine, forced choice between the plan and
counter plan. Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing
both is bad. In both cases, however,
there should still be a unique reason why plan alone is bad, like your
disadvantage.
Critiques: Given equal teams, the critique most likely will
lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is usually when a weaker team does
not argue adequately. I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to
the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality. Good luck selling
me that K whose central premise is that ”we should all hurry up and die
because life's greatest gift is death." Really? I vote on the
flow, but I won't turn off my brain. Still, if your names are
Robert or Sterling, I might buy it. They were eloquentus-maximus.
Weighing: Explain why you win. Weigh impacts.
Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show
how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.
How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements? SPEED - NFA-LD: This is not supposed to be an audition for a
speed-freak auctioneer. Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the
event. That said, I heard debaters last year and none were “too fast” for
the event. If somebody goes “too fast”, I
would be receptive to an attack on that delivery. After
all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right? If I or
the opponent call "clear" or “slow”, heed that request.
SPEED - PARLI: Be sure you really have quality arguments
that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear,
organized, and persuasive. I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll
be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.
JARGON: Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do
all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept. For
example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and
destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is
mistaken. Say something like: "Perm. Do both the plan
and the counter plan. If there is a permutation where both the plan and
the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a
reason to reject the affirmative plan. Vote affirmative unless the
counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative
plan alone or the plan and counter plan together."
TECHNICAL ELEMENTS: Please be organized. I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated. I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count. I will not consider arguments made after time elapses. If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.
Hector Palmeno - SFSU
Kelsey Duff - SFSU
Nathan Steele - CCSF
n/a
Nathan Steele - CCSF
Have fun and claim the space-time of the debate round as belonging to you. Aspire to present clearly organized and supported arguments in your constructive speeches. Your general approach should be to invite dialogue over controversy and offer clear reasoning why your position is preferable. Provide criteria by which I might evaluate the arguments in the round. When inspired, embrace your creativity and wit. Share the time with your opponent during cross-examination. Use rebuttal speeches to extend arguments as you see fit. It is good practice to provide some key voting issues or summary of the competing narratives within the debate to illuminate my decision-making process (i.e., my pathway to voting for you). Delivery doesn't factor heavily into decision-making. Be yourself. Focus on conveying the arguments so your opponent and judge understand. I may comment on features of your nonverbal communication on a ballot, but you'll win the debate with the argument(s).
The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Focus on the arguments during the round. Be good to yourself too. Debate can be difficult at times. Keep bringing your best and youll get better.
Paul Villa - UOP
The metaphor of the highway patrol: On top of being an educator and decision making robot, I think part of my job as a judge is refereeing but I try to perform that function like a member of the highway patrol. If you are driving 70 in a 65 and no one calls to complain about your driving making them unsafe I am probably going to let you drive along. If you are going 95 in a 65 and I deem that as a clear and present danger to the drivers you share the road with, I will likely feel obligated to get involved. Most of the time that will probably just result in a warning or fix-it ticket unless something particularly egregious occurs. Drive approximately the speed of traffic and recognize that you share this road with a variety of people with different backgrounds, abilities, and experiences that might inform how they approach their travels.
Actual Debate Philosophy Stuff: In an ideal world I believe the Aff should be topical and the Neg should be unconditional. Iâm partial to defense and think it can absolutely be terminal. I vote on kritiks as long as I understand them and especially their solvency mechanism and mutual exclusivity. I am not comfortable judging on the basis of your identity or anyone elseâs. I am more likely to have your arguments if you go 85% of your top speed. The PMR should be small, the LoR should be pre-emptive. I will do my best to protect from new arguments in the rebuttals. Most RVIâs are dumb. If the format has rules I take them seriously but assuming neither side cares about those rules I am willing to just let the competitors play. I think you introducing a performance into the round and straying away from âtraditionalâ? debate invites me to make my decision on the basis of whether that performance was particularly compelling or cool.
Reed Ramsey - DVC
Scott Laczko - SJSU
n/a
Sean Thai - Nevada
I'm Open to most debate.
Theory/Framework/Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations, unless reasonability is won hard. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps. Voters are cool.
Straight-Up:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high? mag/low? prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't? cheato? veto.Don't cheat. I have a low threshold.? It'snorcal, so I'll mention this: topical CP's are fine.
K's:
I appreciate and think ID politics and CRT have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that sometimes it? weaponizes? identities and that debate is the wrong forum for it. I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning.? Aff? K's that reject the topic are definitely more susceptible to theory, especially when the? negreads "topical version of the? Affsolves/exists." Simple reject alternatives are not too welcomed, but, are acceptable.
General Debate:
Condo is good.? Multi-condo not so much.Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm? veryexpressive, sometimes I'm not.
Flex time questions are binding.
Novice Debates:? i? am more inclined to default to more of? a reasonability/articulated abuse lens of debate. I suppose? its? just an arbitrary decision to decide this way, but it's just a gut feeling.
?Â
Shannon Valdivia - Mt. Hood CC
I have been coaching for 25 years. I was a CEDA-Value debater as a competitor and have coached NPDA, BP and IPDA.
I value substance AND delivery! You won't get my ballot by just talking pretty.
I want to see a clear framework set up with your resolutional analysis. I want a clear CRITERIA so you can tell me what lens am I to look at your arguments. I expect that if it is a value, policy or fact based resolution - that the case structure will resemble the resolution you've been given - not what you want to turn it into.
I expect competitors to be kind and respectful to each other - in every aspect of the debate - from saying hello, to how you ask questions in CX.
On the Neg. Please give me a Negative philosophy so I know how you are looking at the resolution. If you need to give counter definitions, values, criterias - then I need to know WHY you are doing this and HOW your offering is BETTER than the AFF. Please make sure you are linking your off case arguments to case so that I know which part of the case you are attacking. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT!
SPEED KILLS: I know that the times in this style of debate can be challenging....but instead of speeding - try word economy! Speed will impact your speaker points.
Bottom line: In the words of my late mother - PERSUADE ME!
Shannon LaBove - RIce
Shannon LaBove MA, JD
ADOF Rice University
Judging Philosophy
Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)
I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)
I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:
Don’t Like:
I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.
I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.
I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.
Do Like
Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.
Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.
Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist
Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making
I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.
Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks
No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.
Preferences on calling Points of Order.
If you see it call it.
Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!
Shannon LaBove - RIce
Shannon LaBove MA, JD
ADOF Rice University
Judging Philosophy
Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)
I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)
I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:
Don’t Like:
I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.
I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.
I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.
Do Like
Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.
Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.
Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist
Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making
I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.
Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks
No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.
Preferences on calling Points of Order.
If you see it call it.
Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!
Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba College
n/a