Judge Philosophies
Ahmed Kalakech - IVC
Aldo Gastelum - IVC
Alexandros Ruppert - IVC
Alison Kent - IVC
Althea Gevero - IVC
Anahita Jafary - IVC
Andrew Guzman - IVC
Atria Jamshidi - IVC
Austin Johnson - IVC
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.
Brendan Golden - IVC
Cody Herman - IVC
Daichi Ishida - IVC
Daniel Tuiteleleapaga - IVC
Daya Niazi - IVC
Dean Mossalam - IVC
Elaine Vo - IVC
Eli Wilson - IVC
Eric Chang - IVC
Eva Tsai - IVC
Hedieh Sorouri - IVC
Jennifer Hong - IVC
Jennifer Lacount - IVC
John Cho - IVC
- First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
- Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
- Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
- In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
- Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
- Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
- IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
- Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!
Julie Moore - IVC
Ketaki Joshi - IVC
Kylie Turi - IVC
Layla Nazowi - IVC
Max Russell - IVC
Megan Kennedy - IVC
Mioko Bannister - IVC
Nicole Olmos - IVC
Oli Loeffler - IVC
I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.
I think neg teams have
ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to
win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level
theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with
some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not
the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to
judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation
of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.
Speed shouldn't be a
problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down.
Rachel Ker - IVC
Randell Monzon - IVC
Sam Greenberg - IVC
Sana Khan - IVC
Sasha Rongahi - IVC
Shani Fetratkar - IVC
Sheida Masoudi - IVC
Sheldon Pryor - IVC
Sumah Faqhir - IVC
Taleen Alzwahereh - IVC
Tatiahna Crishon - IVC