Traditional judge. Many years of experience, but not a fan of speed or kritiks. Approaches rounds as a policymaker unless persuaded otherwise. Speaking skills are important and the flow is important. In Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum rounds, Rhetorical skills and audience communication skills will weight heavily with me. I take old-school, in-depth PAPER notes. Argue “man in the street” to me.

FJG NOV/DEC 2020 TOPIC - if as the negative you argue "the fact that the unemployed do not have skills" or "they won't want to work hard" is an impact and do not elaborate on that point i will be fairly upset. think of a better way to phrase your argument.

yes, i want to be on the email chain: izzieosorio3@gmail.com

bio: i use they/them pronouns. i'm three years out. i debated 2014-2018 in sioux falls, sd. i have experience in both trad and nat circ ld and policy. i was a 4x natl qualifier, state champion my junior year, state semi-finalist my senior year, top 50 my senior year at NSDAs and top 8 at NCFLs.

i mainly ran analytic phil (kant), critical literature (anzaldua, butler), and pomo (braidotti, haraway). i'll probably be familiar w what you throw at me (ask just in case), but as long as you have a warrant, we'll be good.

prefs:

1 kritikal/performance/non-topical (high theory 2/3)

1 phil

2 larp

4 theory/t/tricks (but feel free to challenge this)

short version: tw's are necessary, pronouns are encouraged. 6/10 on speed. i'll vote on most any argument/position as long as there is a warrant. if it gets too techy, be explicit on the flow or else i'll draw the conclusions for you. pref me if you run deeply critical/philosophical positions. i'm hesitant towards theory and if it's your a-strat you need slow down - i have more thoughts later down. send me the speech doc. be nice.

long version: as an overview, my job is to adjudicate the clash between the ideas that two debaters/teams - i'm not here to tell you what to run, i'm here to listen to the arguments you present.

that being said, run your strat and run it well. i want to hear arguments that have warrants, are impacted out in the round and interactive w your opponents args. preferably these args should be impacted to an established weighing mechanism . if neither debater does this at all, i will try to discern a decision based on the arguments in round and you probably will not be happy with how i vote.

i like critical literature, i like western phil. i like high theory, but slow down so i can catch everything. i did policy in hs and can appreciate a good aff plan/solid cp+disad strat. p much i'll listen to whatever you have to bring to the debate, so run what your most familiar/confident/strong with.

with t and theory, i didn't debate it ~incredibly often~, so i am not the most qualified to judge and have a higher threshold for voting on it. however, i have less preferences/beliefs when it comes to t/theory and will listen to whatever you have as long as it's thought-out and developed. i like strategy, but don't be absurd/unreasonable (a good t shell against a plan aff instead of a generic "aff can't run plans" interp). regardless, you're gonna need to slow down for me to catch all your args. i'll vote on spikes, but if it's your a-strat, you prolly won't get high speaks (don't do 6 mins of "they dropped 'x' spike, vote them down") - give me at least one other route to vote.

speed: if i have a speech doc, we'll be good. if i don't, just be CLEAR and LOUD and i can flow. either way, if you're like the fastest spreader on earth, bring it down to like a 6. i'll yell clear if i'm completely lost on the flow.

speaks: don't be offensive/run offensive args (e.g. racism good), you'll get an L-20

high speaks are gonna be given to well thought-out positions that are utilized in substantive/nuanced ways. debaters will have interacted w the opponents arguments intuitively and made thoughtful/strategic decisions.

just be nice to your opponent, debate is not that deep to be mean about it. if it's clear your opponent has no idea what your position is and you intentionally steamroll them i will tank your speaks.

if you have any questions, email me or ask before round. glhf :)

Numbered points are from the NSDA ballot

1. The resolution evaluated is a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is. Values are ideals held by individuals, societies, governments, etc., which serve as the highest goals to be considered or achieved within the context of the resolution in question.

2. Each debater has the burden to prove his or her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. It is unrealistic to expect a debater to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who, on the whole, proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.

3. Students are encouraged to research topic-specific literature and applicable works of philosophy. The nature of proof should be in the logic and the ethos of a student's independent analysis and/or authoritative opinion.

4. Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, a judge should only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that was clear and understandable to him/her as a judge. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.

5. After a case is presented, neither debater should be rewarded for presenting a speech completely unrelated to the arguments of his or her opponent; there must be clash concerning the major arguments in the debate. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, and/or advance arguments.

6. The judge shall disregard new arguments introduced in rebuttal. This does not include the introduction of new evidence in support of points already advanced or the refutation of arguments introduced by opponents.

7. Because debaters cannot choose which side of the resolution to advocate, judges must be objective evaluators of both sides of the resolution. Evaluate the round based only on the arguments that the debaters made and not on personal opinions or on arguments you would have made.

I prefer to make my final decision of the voting issues the debaters present in the context of the round.  I do believe the debate is ultimately about the resolution. 

Deliver rate: I prefer typical conversational speed

Framework (value/criterion): Debaters need to tell me how the resolution should be evaluated based on its key value term(s) i.e. ought

Evidence:  Using known philosophical positions might be easier to understand, but are not required.  A philosophical argument does not require evidence, nor do thought experiments.  However, factual arguments require evidence.

Flowing: I write down the key arguments throughout the round vs keeping a rigorous flow.

Plans and Counterplans:  Not acceptable

Pet peeves: I dislike debaters arguing the generic faults of extreme positions on utilitarianism and deontology, rather than talking about the principles and consequences that are specifically tied to the resolution. I have become disenchanted with policy debate and don't like excesses of policy debate creeping into LD debate i.e. speed and kritiks. 

Experience:  I have judged LD since it started which was around 1979.  I was a high school policy debater.  I debated CEDA in college when they did propositions of value.  I have coached CEDA at the college level.  I'm currently an LD coach and have previously coached policy and public forum debate.