Aimee Newton -- College of the Canyons
Amanda Ozaki-Laughon -- Concordia University Irvine
I am the Director of Forensics at Concordia University Irvine. I competed both nationally and locally at PSCFA and NPTE/NPDA tournaments during my 4 years of competition, and this is my 4th year coaching and judging.Ã???Ã?Â
I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.Ã???Ã?Â
Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both.Ã???Ã?Â
Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.Ã???Ã?Â
Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.Ã???Ã?Â
Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).Ã???Ã?Â
Andrea Ruiz -- California State University Fullerton
Andrea Sanchez -- San Diego State University
Ã?Â Ã?Â Hello! My name is Andrea, and I am a former debater of SDSU and Palomar College. As a tl;dr:
Tell me how to evaluate arguments. Please let me know how I can help to make the round a safe and accessible space. Give a clear link/impact scenario; why is your Ã¢??nuke warÃ¢?? scenario actually going to happen? What does this mean in the scope of the debate? Speed is fine, but be clear. IÃ¢??m not too fond of econ debates, so guide me through it friends! Kritiks and procedurals are great, but I also like traditional case/policy debates. IÃ¢??ll listen to just about anything Ã?Â as long as itÃ¢??s not ableist, racist, sexist, queerphobic, etc. If you disregard this and are very toxic in round, it will reflect in your speaker points. Perms can be advocacies if you tell me they are. I donÃ¢??t believe DAÃ¢??s (especially tics DAÃ¢??s) can be permed. In essence; be organized, tell me where youÃ¢??re winning, and compare impacts.
Speed: IÃ¢??m okay with speed, but clarity is of high importance. ItÃ¢??s not worth potentially making a lot of arguments if your opponents or I are saying Ã¢??clearÃ¢?? or Ã¢??speedÃ¢?? every 30 seconds (which would likely affect your speaker points). Volume and clarity can also help make the round more accessible (in more than one regard).
Procedurals: TheyÃ¢??re great! A debate about framing and the words we use can be very persuasive depending on the impacts you choose to derive from it (c/kritical args can be very fun to make in rounds with procedurals/theory). Make sure you tell me how to evaluate this position; just because you say Ã¢??A PrioriÃ¢?? doesnÃ¢??t mean I will prioritize the argument; why is it important for articulated or potential abuse? Explain why I should fault to competing interps (if you choose to make that arg). Repeat your interps.
Framework: IÃ¢??m down for a framework debate. If a counter framework is presented, the other side should address it. If there are two frameworks floating around and nobody tells me how they interact or frame the impacts, I will be very annoyed (it will mean that I have to do some of that work at the end of the round, and nobody wants that).
Kritiks: Kritik debates can be very fun! DonÃ¢??t be afraid to test out a weird or new K in front of me. Affirmative kritiks arenÃ¢??t unwelcome; please explain your reasoning for rejecting the topic, or using the K as a method for discussing the resolution. Performance args are fine. I expect the other team to ask, though, if the performance is the method/ advocacy. Alts (just like CPÃ¢??s) are permmable if done correctly.
CPÃ¢??s: Please say why your CP is mutually exclusive. PICs are not so fun/not the most competitive counter plans you could be running.
Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debate
Annie Schuver -- Hired Judge
Ashley Nuckels Cuevas -- San Diego State University
Blake Longfellow -- Diablo Valley College
Danny Cantrell -- Mt. San Antonio College
Destinee Sior -- Maricopa Speech and Debate
Hello! My name is Destinee Sior and I am a debate coach for Maricopa Community College. I just have a few things to say about how I view the wonderful world of debate, and my method on judging. For starters- no matter the type of debate- I will always want you to do what you do best, what you feel comfortable with, and debate in whichever way makes you happy.
I do not mind if you do critical or policy oriented debate. I enjoy listening to Ks and I really enjoy just straight policy cases. Whichever one you choose, all I ask is that you give me a solid structure and you stick to it. Sloppy debate is one of my biggest pet peeves. Please make it easy for me to follow you so I can get everything you say down on paper. I donâ??t care for the double-clutching speed debate, but I can typically flow well if you want to spread. However-- just because, I can flow it does not mean your opponent can. If you are asked to â??clearâ?? you need to SLOW DOWN. I do not care for Kâ??s ran out of the affirmative, but if you want to party please have a solid link story. Negative strats should include an interrogation of the affirmative, as well as their own case. I will not gut check your arguments for you, please do not ask me to do that. Tell me why dropped arguments are important. I love impact calc â¤ Weigh your impacts on timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Give me voters / reasons to prefer. I think it is the job of the debater to make my job easy, but also have fun. I loved debate and you should debate the way you love.
IPDA-- For the IPDA debaters, please understand I have a Parli and LD background. With that being said, I understand that IPDA is not Parli nor LD. Therefore, please do not debate as such. My judging philosophy for this though is roughly the same-- structure, structure, structure. Give me a solid impact story. Do not just say â??lives savesâ? â??improves ecosystemâ? -- what does that MEAN? Why does it matter? How are you weighing it against your opponent? Do not just rely on me to do the work for you. Give me lots and lots of warrants, I love evidence. Most importantly, letâ??s have some fun.
Erick Roebuck -- SEARK College
Erika Portillo -- EPCC
Jim Dobson -- Las Positas College
Joe Sindicich -- California State University Fullerton
Joseph Laughon -- Concordia University Irvine
Debated for five years, 2 for Moorpark College and 3 for CUI. I did ok. I am now the assistant director of debate at Concordia University.
Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I am a fairly straight up critic. A few points though; Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
- The K Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Despite my reputation while competing as being one of the most boring white men alive, I do not discourage it and towards the end, Will and I ran it fairly often. I am familiar with most generic kritiks (cap, whiteness, militarism, Virilio, borders, coercion, the gift, etc...) and have no problem voting on it. However my threshhold for defense on the k is likely lower than most judges, though not extremely so. You can't win on defense as much as I might sympathize with your struggle to do so. For me the vast majority of frameworks are poorly written and debates exclusively about poorly written frameworks are fairly boring. Debates on the alt solvency/alt offense/perm solvency/perm NBs are far more interesting and will help you win more often. That being said I've become more of a fan of well done framework debate. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Please be relevant. I don't mind a generic cap k for some godawful debate about the minutiae of financial regulation or something. But try to make it slightly connected to the topic beyond, "You reify the state by using the USFG as an actor. Next off, 8 minutes of state bad." Also understand I do not spend even 1/25th the time you have spent reading the literature for your K (unless its cap or coercion). Be gentle with it. Name dropping a bunch of authors/authoresses isn't going to be persuasive because I will not have read them as deeply as you have. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â On a side note I see debate largely as a game we do largely for fun with the side benefits of being smarter/well rounded. I do not see it primarily as a catalyst for revolutionary social change or really any kind of "community. I'll vote on whatever wins you the game but please don't assume I am "down" because unless it's the restoration of monarchy, then odds are no. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â -Theory Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Hated as a competitor, like it a lot as a judge. Down with T but your counter interp probably needs to actually respond to the interp. Counter interps like "We must only be held to the resolution" isn't counter to anything much less their interp. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
-DAs. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Obviously I'm a fan. I'm a huge fan of good uniqueness debates. Bad uniqueness debates (oh here's 5 reasons why the econ is up, naw dawg here's 6 reasons why its down. 6> 5 duh.) make me sad. Personally how I decide on this will go a long way in how I decide the direction of the DA and its likelihood since it is a debate on what world the plan takes part in to begin with.Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Major points: Internal link/impact defense. Does not happen enough. Please do that. The amount of times good team just spot the other side the notion that a nuclear bomb will cause extinction is so high it's absurd. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
- Counter plans/perm debate.
Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Competition is good. Personally I prefer NB competition as I think its the most educational. Mutual exclusivity is usually just a form of NB competition though I am open to arguments as to why it is not. Do better than the same 3 generic perm blocks. How many times must we hear "Butler says..." in the perm debate? Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Impact Calc: Ã???Ã??Ã?Â If no one tells me how to judge straight up impact debates then I revert to magnitude and probability. So if you just tell me your impact is bigger and they tell me that theirs is more probable, I will probably revert to the bigger magnitude impact (especially if its extinction vs. some one feels bad about themselves). Give me reasons why prob > mag or vice versa. I do enjoy good defense debate on the probability level. Time frame isn't brought up enough. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â I'm also a big fan of the "Big mag impacts bad v. Big mag impacts good" debate. But if it doesn't happen, unfortunately I'm a hack for the mag x prob (extinction x .000001 still pretty big risk) impact calc. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â Not totally against "key to value to life" args if they are decent internal links into what gives human life value. But baseless claims of, "And now there's no value to life!" claims are pretty easily beaten in front of me. Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
-House keeping Ã???Ã??Ã?Â
>Speed: Don't care one way or another. I will clear you if I can't understand. I can hang, though slightly less than when I was competing since my ego isn't in the round anymore. If your advocacy is long as hell please repeat it.
>POOs: Call them. I can't guarantee me catching them cheating every time. So unless you want me letting it slide and someone throws a fit, call it. But if you're some senior team on the national circuit pummeling some freshman babies from a CC and you really feel the need to POO this poor child's PMR, you should feel bad.
>I'm not a point fairy.
Keegan Bosch -- Hired Judge
Kiefer Storrer -- Maricopa Speech and Debate
Competed 4 years high school Policy, 4 years college parli. Took a year off, judged, then helped coach a comprehensive program in Grad School. Currently in my 2nd year of head coaching, 3rd year of professional coaching. I think debate is whatever you want to make it. It can be a game or a really good platform of advocacy, so I'm pretty supportive of like, inclusive arguments, theory, projects, etc. Speed is fine but especially in Parli give me clear tag lines. You don't need to read DAs to prove abuse on procedurals, just explain to me args you missed out on. Umm. Don't kick offense, please. I like clash and impact calc unless you are warranting out other places I should be specifically voting. Good luck, have fun; don't be a dick.Â
L A -- California State University Fullerton
Matthew Minnich -- EPCC
Michael Starzynski -- Santiago Canyon College
Nathaniel Rogers -- San Diego State University
Ralph Castellanos -- Santiago Canyon College
Salim Razawi -- Las Positas College
Tim Heisler -- Las Positas College
Tim Seavey -- San Diego State University
TW: Suicide, Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Rape
Overview/ TLDR: I am a flow critic and debate is a game but we should be doing all that we can to make the space accessible to all participants. Clearly state how I should evaluate arguments and I will do that; I do default to competing interpretations and prefer high Probability, low Magnitude and Proximity impacts to high Magnitude and low Probability.Ã?Â All advocacy, criteria/ROB, and procedural texts should be repeated for clarity in the round.Ã?Â
Speed: I can keep up and will let you know to be more clear if I need it. If your opponents are unable to engage in speed please be accommodating.Ã?Â
Procedurals: I really like procedural debate. I enjoy specific interpretations and counterinterps (please repeat these since they are usually pretty important). I need articulated abuse if using an abuse paradigm but I default to a competing interpretations paradigm if not otherwise instructed.Ã?Â
K's: Run them, have fun, and give me a clear FW, ROB, ALT, and ALT solvency. I prefer K's that have specific link scenarios to the debate round instead of just generic ones. Perms should be repeated so that I can get them down correctly.Ã?Â
Theory: Like I said before, this is your game, tell me how to evaluate the round and I will operate within those parameters. I generally believe that Conditional Arguments are good but I will not do the work for you on the warrant level.
Pet Peeves: Citing a theory or theorist and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about.Ã?Â
Tyler Watkins -- Concordia University Irvine
Wade Hescht -- Lone Star College-North Harris
Zoe-Raven Stevens -- Santiago Canyon College