Judge Philosophy

Eric David Garcia, University of Oklahoma

I did LD value debate in high school. I did NDT debate for Cal State Fullerton for 4 years. I qualified for the NDT in 1992 and 1993. I coached parliamentary debate NPDA/NPTE from 2003 to 2012. My flow sheeting skills have declined with age. I will probably yell "slow" more than I used to.

I most often look to the dropped, impacted arguments first. If no criterion is given, I will default to net benefits, but really I want you to tell me what criteria to use or how to evaluate arguments in the round.

I am more open to procedurals than most judges. I am open to voting on potential abuse and competing interpretations. I am open to theory debates. I barely tolerate critiques. Critique debaters don't use tag lines. I have no idea what to write because the debaters should be using tags for the audience. I detest projects. Projects largely damage NPDA by ignoring the topic.

For rebuttals, I value weighing likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility, and timeframe. If the debaters do not do the analysis for me, I will default to my non-tabula rasa, real world bias.

My real world bias is Libertarian. Take the 1st right on economics and the 1st left on sex and that's my bias. AOC and Bernie Sanders are economic idiots and endorse statist violence. Also, what you ingest for pleasure or do in the bedroom is none of my business. In the real world, government should follow the Non-Aggression Principle. End the War on Drugs. Consent and voluntarism are beautiful. Coercion is terrible.

Being snippy toward the opponents will affect your speaker points. Constantly feeding your partner answers will affect their speaker points. Once or twice is ok, but don’t overdo it.

For parliamentary debate, please call points of order. I’ll probably catch the new arguments on my own, but it doesn’t hurt to call it.

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is an blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.