2024 Golden Eagle Classic

Concordia University Irvine - Jan 27-28 | Status: Completed | 3:20 PM Pacific

Profile Image
Tournament Time: 3:20 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Evans - HJ

n/a

Alix Lopez - Mt. SAC

Debates should be accessible and educational. For me, that means

  • clear labels for your arguments, compelling and credible evidence/examples, and language that's easy to follow.
  • no spreading. I have an incredibly hard time following speed, and I want to make sure I am judging you on your argumentation and public speaking. Which can only happen if I can follow you!
  • you are courteous to your opponent.
  • you make it clear why I should vote for you.

Excited to see you all debate!

Emily Schnoor - UNI

n/a

George Talavera - CUI

n/a

Haidyn Christoffel - CUI

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are.I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech.I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting.I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark

I don't really like giving a philosophy because I think your education in this activity should not be limited/influenced by my preferences. I will adapt to the round and evaluate it based on the parameters set by the debaters. I'm not going to do any work for you----tell me where you want your arguments applied, weigh your impacts, stress where/why you are winning, etc. I value clash & accessibility in debate. Without accessibility, there can be no clash. I have no problems with speed or jargon, but please be courteous with your opponent (I probably won't clear you, but if your opponent does, you need to slow down.) Off-time roadmaps & a clear structure promote accessibility and make everyone's life easier. Just have fun & respect your opponent.

Jules Bruetsch - HJ

n/a

Justin Jung - HJ

ABOUT ME

Background:He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. Ive also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR:Ill flow the round and vote off whats on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when youre responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD:I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.):I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that theres any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you dont actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponents arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX:I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions:I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and dont assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory:What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the rules of debate are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because its (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say strategy skew is bad for education. Be clear about what youre saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, its ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but its up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If youre reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but thats still up for debate, and usually shouldnt come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms:Ive read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what youre reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed:My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active Ive been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that its been more than six months since Ive last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine I can type well over 100 wpm as long as youre enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponents speech by stating slow or clear if you cant hear them. If your opponent doesnt acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a theory argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other:Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you dont make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isnt on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when youre going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters Ive seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the Speed portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponents, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and dont concede rounds even if you think youre losing. You never know whats happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

Kyle Pryor-Landman - SDSU

Hi, I am Kyle Pryor-Landman, my pronouns are he/him, my email is kpryorlandman@sdsu.edu, and I am the Director of Debate at SDSU. I competed in NPDA debate for 3 years, won some tournaments, and got some trophies, and now I coach college and high school parli.

FAQs:

  1. What can I run in front of you?: Anything you want. Seriously. IDC.
  2. Can I spread?: Sure, just dont be abusive.
  3. Can I reject the topic?: Probably! Do you know your own K? (If you cannot give an enthusiastic YES! To this question, think twice)
  4. What do you want to see?: In order from most to least enjoyable for me to judge:
    1. Topical Aff vs. Disads/CP/T
    2. Topical Aff vs. K
    3. K aff vs. FW-T
    4. K aff vs. K (everyone understands their K)
    5. K aff vs K (no one understands their K) (I am the wrong judge to break your new K aff in front of)
  5. Will you vote on frivolous theory?: Did you argue it well enough?: If yes, sure. If not, probably no.
  6. Do you have a preference for sitting/standing/side of the room?: You do you, Pookie.
  7. Do you protect?: I try to, but call your POOs. My flow is messy, admittedly.
  8. Will you give me 30 speaks?: If you ask, you get a 20. :)
  9. Do you accept bribes?: Officially, no.
  10. What about LD?: The same rules apply from parli but give me a little bit more pen time because I am still figuring out how I feel.
  11. How do you feel about IPDA?: Poorly. The closer it is to NPDA the less I have to intervene, and the happier I am. Do with that what you will.
  12. How do you feel about TPDA? Please reject the topic and spread as fast as you can. The faster we can get TPDA to collapse, the better.
  13. Is there anything else I should know about you as a judge?: I like to have fun silly goofy time in debate rounds. I also have carpal tunnel, so my written RFDs are going to be shorter than they used to be. Email me after the tournament if you want more written feedback, but you should also be writing down your oral feedback anyway.
  14. If I ask you what your paradigm is before round, what will you say?: This exact sentence: Its on ForensicsTournament if you wanna check it out.

Cowardice is a voting issue. Say it with your chest. - Adeja Powell

TL;DR - Do what you want. I can keep up. Debate is about you, not me. Just make sure I can follow along.

Speaks: 26-30 unless you say a slur or something extra shitty. 30 being the best speech I have heard all year, 26 being you did not include significant portions of the debate, extremely unorganized, and/or no terminalization. < 26: You'll know because I'll tell you.

Mason Remaley - Jewell

Tab, do whatever you do best. I do not have any categorical prohibitions on any types of arguments. While debating I mostly read the K (Cap, Psychoanalysis, Queerness, Schmitt, Heidegger, Biopolitics, etc.) with T and heg as secondary strategies.

Impact comparison is incredibly important for my ballot. Debate is a game of world comparison, for instance if the debate comes down to an aff vs a disad, I will ask myself if the world of the aff or the world of the status quo is net beneficial. This is what it means to weigh impacts. My default impact framing mechanism is Util. If you present an alternative impact framing mechanism tell me how it impacts my evaluation.

Interps must be textually competitive, there is no spirit of the T. For instance, if your interp is "the aff must spec their agent of action." I will vote on a we meet if the aff specs it at some point in the round. So, a better interp would be "the aff must spec their agent of action in the pmc."

T and theory require explicit interps,

If you are going for a non-extinction death impact under a util framing (which is my default if you dont present me with an alternative) please quantify your impacts.

I have very ambivalent feelings about MG theory. The absences of backside rebuttals makes it structurally abusive but on the other hand without it there is not way to check back for neg abuse. My attitude can be summarized thusly: "lets not!"

Speed is not an issue

I see to minimize judge intervention. Many debate that I judge often miss the forest for the trees, the entire debate becomes a show line by line tit for tat responses without either team pulling across a warrant that is predictive of the opponents arguments nor taking a step back and establishing the stakes of these line by line attacks as it relates to the substance of the debate. Please do predictive comparisons.

Theory defaults to common issues: Condo good, don't need to spec, speed good, cx is binding, presumption goes neg.

Fiat is required for any negative argument that does not defend the status quo.

I did policy debate in High School and was the 2018 4A CX state champion. I did parli at UT Tyler and was a two time NPTE finalist and a one time NPDA finalist. I currently coach parli at William Jewell College.
masonaremaley@gmail.com

Michael Marse - CBU

I adopt a real-world policy-maker paradigm, which means:

  • I give leeway to either side to point out deliberate obfuscation and/or spread as a procedural voter.
  • I give leeway to the affirmative to argue that critiques/kritiks should be treated as disadvantages.
  • I believe the resolution has primacy, so unless the affirmative rejects the resolution, the negative has no ground to argue for the resolution by offering a topical counterplan.
  • Value resolutions should aim for clarity with arguments used in support of a side.  Values can not, generally, become facts through argument.
  • Fact resolutions should rarely be argued since the required objective verification is difficult with no pre-written evidence allowed.
  • Affirmatives in a policy round should provide enough detail to allow the negative to make arguments, but are not required to provide absolute certainty.  So, an expensive plan should generally state what the source of funding should be, or which types of programs will be cut to pay for the plan.  Specific amounts and line items are not required.

I flow arguments, not responses. So, a claim of "no link" with no grounds will be ignored.

Ties go to the best arguments, and in the case of argumentation being close, the win will go to the best (most effective in a real-world scenario) delivery style.

Mikayla Holzinger - OCC

I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.

Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.

Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,

Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.

IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.

NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).

Off-Time Roadmaps: I time roadmaps; they don't take a lot of time, so do them but include it in your time.

Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments

If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them.

Nathan Wensko - Clovis

My main focus in the area of all debates is to focus on how the debate is defined for each of its categories. I like to adhere to the guidelines presented for each format. So, Parli is Parli and has jargon, IPDA has some emphasis in delivery and sure be attempted with less jargon, NFA LD has priority of stock issues, and so on.

Beyond that, my philosophy is grounded in structure and clarity so that I can let the arguments do the work instead of myself and my perceptions.

The main focus within constructive speeches is looking at links, impacts, and solvency. I believe these to be highly persuasive elements.

In refutation, I look for the clear line drawn by the speaker from the point they are making and its relation to the point they are addressing.

In Rebuttal speeches, I do like to hear clear Voting issues and why they matter and a comparative approach to the status quo versus changing it.

Regarding Topicality and Kritik. I am open to these arguments; however, using them just to throw everything at the government is problematic for me. Essentially, there must be sound cause to introduce such arguments into the round.

Partner Communication should not be disruptive to the speaker.

Finally, I also enjoy seeing collegiality and community in rhetoric and language. I know that the heat of a debate can be invigorating and can be healthy, but if there are any ad hominem arguments, I will take this into account as a voting issue.

In any Individual Event, I am open to anything presented to me.

Nicholas Santamaria - CBU

n/a

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics 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:

  1. 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 conducive to your chances of winning.

  2. 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. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.

  3. 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.

  4. I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.

  5. 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.

  6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
    - Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
    - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...

  7. 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.

  8. I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Rebekah Symank - CUI

n/a

Sade Barfield - UNI

n/a

Sam Chang - PLNU

n/a

Sean Nowlan - CUI

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR NPDA NATIONALS 2024. BOLDED PORTIONS ARE NEW/CHANGED AS OF 03/13/2024

In General-

  • Pessimistic Kritiks:

    • See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect

  • Speed:

    • I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 400+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made.

    • If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.
  • Theory
    • Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.
    • I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.
  • Case Debate
    • Love it. It's my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world
    • Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.
    • From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism
    • If youre going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.
    • When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts
  • Kritiks
    • Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
    • If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.
    • Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.
    • There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesn't balance out against topicality theory in front of me.
  • Conditionality and PICs-
    • I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICS, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
    • If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

Stephen Hosmer - PLNU

?