Judge Philosophies
Abigail Kim - CL
n/a
Aine Molvik - IVC
n/a
Anni Chen - IVC
Ava Ye - MLA
n/a
Ayden Loeffler - IVC
THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.
When
reading fresh new
and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a
clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be
prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education
I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third
priority as well.
Some
hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of
me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find
conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to
see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that
didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the
interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the
interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR
nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many
theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not
worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you
aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if
you're buying the theory here's this disad."
Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not
vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just
do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really
want to hear.
Theory
positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize
them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that
suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that
MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been
decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over
others.
SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written
notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss
topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a
bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group
most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the
arguments effectively.
To
newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you
are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as
though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge
your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round
because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient
debate.
If
you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less
experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that
your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat
going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as
reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on
your ballot that you're a bully.
For
the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach
I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will
verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.
CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms
has waned over the years. An older It could just be a difference in meta
between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in
front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty
understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are
incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't
explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these
points if your alt is a mess).
As
a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much
of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the
writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If you aren't
reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent
around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than
I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.
I
have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.
Collapse - Please collapse.
Free Stuff - If you don't have access
to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after
round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this
collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old
and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.
Bahar Khezri - IVC
n/a
Emily Serna - IVC
n/a
George Diamantopolis - IVC
Gowtham Krishnakumar - IVC
n/a
Ian Breyer - IVC
Isaiah Salgato - CL
n/a
Jessica Tero - Honor Academy
n/a
Jonathan Rho - RSJ
n/a
Julia Leslie - IVC
Justin Williams - IVC
Kelly Harris - IVC
n/a
Kitiny Phumchun - Honor Academy
n/a
Sam Greenberg - IVC
Scott Brown - Honor Academy
n/a
Seadona Taloma - IVC
n/a
Shijie Jason Wang - CL
n/a
Steven Dykstra - IVC
n/a
Tate Oien - IVC
n/a
Thomas Loynd - IVC
n/a