Judging Philosophy of Tim Elizondo

Background: I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program. Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years. The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.

Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars. As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.

I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round. I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Admittedly, I have found that I do believe the affirmative is bound by the resolution is MOST cases and teams should be warned before offering a critical affirmative case that seeks to spotlight some sort of topic outside the scope of the resolution (especially if the team is running the same affirmative in multiple rounds.)

I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO. I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .

-I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.

-I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.

-I do not mind “tag teaming” during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.

-Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

-Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

About Me::

-I have been in forensics for 6+ years

-I've debated in college, most of my experience is in NPDA Parli and IPDA (International Public Debate). I've probably done every speech event that's been available for me to do, competing in Interp and platforms all throughout high school (college too, though more platform at this level)

-I was a speech/interp coach for two and a half years at Mountain House High School.

-I'm currently a double major in Economics and International Relations at the University of California, Davis.

Overview::

-I'm familiar with jargon, theory, as well as "K's" in debate (I DO NOT LIKE KRITIQUES)

-I look for a story when it comes to interp, I can't stand it when I'm only getting glimpses of a scene that doesn't make sense.

-I'm fine with speed in debate, but keep it reasonable or I'm going to miss something.

-Make sure platforms have a cohesive pace, engagement is through your tone; if you're bored I'm bored.

-I try my best to flow the whole debate, that's where I'll be looking to see how the debate played out. I protect the flow the best I can (call point of orders if you like just in case).

When Judging::

Speech~

-I see the story as everything, if there's no story there's no point (this goes for both interps and platforms)

-Character, blocking, and articulation is most important in any speech. If you're lacking in one of these three it'll be really hard for me to rank you high in the round.

-Please let there be a clear indication that you've switched into your intro. Otherwise, I get confused when the piece and the intro blend. Your intro should explain your message, if you're not giving me that, then you've wasted this one glimpse I get at the whole point of your piece.

-Please stay positive to your round mates, you're all there for the same reason. Don't stonewall and pay attention, I feel as if it's a lame tactic that does nothing but make you look like a jerk. I count this towards speaker points (if applicable).

Debate~

-I enjoy good clash in the round, go into each other's arguments (with politeness and respect). This means link refutations and impact comparisons/weighing.

-Make your case, arguments need to have a point. Useless arguments that you just say and don't come back to, makes me question why it was said.

-Organization is key; please signpost, roadmap, whatever needs to be done to tell me where you are putting your arguments. Tell me where you want me to vote on the flow.

-Impact analysis is essential to all debates, impact statements without analysis are not impacting, it's reiterating the argument, if you are going to tell me why it matters, make it matter!

-Tell me why you are winning, give me voters in your rebuttal. At the end of the day, whatever is on my flow is what you have going for you. So you have to show me why you won. I will not do the work for you, if you don't carry the arguments over, I won't carry it over.

-Theory, if done well, is something I see as useful. It's your check against your opponents to prevent shifting or other unfair actions. That being said, I don't mind that you use it to collapse and win, or even for strategy (but don't be shady about it!). Theory needs to have offense (a route to win) on the interpretation level, a clear link (violation), and standards that flow through to the impacts (voters). I want you to explain to me why I should be doing what you're telling me on the theory (am I rejecting the argument or the team?) and why is it more important than the argument the other team made (or even the rest of the debate).

* The framework I default to is Net Benefits...

-K's are not my thing. I never liked them, so doing one in front of me is probably not a good idea. The literature in them is often so individualized that I can't keep up a lot of the time with the point you're trying to make. I have a hard time buying solvency on the alternatives of most K's I've heard and for that reason, I don't see it as a smart argument to be made.

Overall::

-The point of forensics is to create experiences that could be used outside of rounds.

-Be courteous, respectful, and inclusive to everybody you interact with

-Go nuts and have fun doing it :)

I update this google doc way more than I do my tabroom account (the last update was from 2015 - yikes!):

https://tinyurl.com/yd7ndhyh

Blake Longfellow has over 20 years of forensics experience reaching back to his sophomore year of high school. Throughout his competitive career at Orange Coast College and subsequently Bradley University, Blake participated in all 11 of the speech events at the national level. He then earned his masters degree from Western Kentucky University, where he served as a graduate assistant coaching Communication Analysis. He is also the founder of Hired Judge, a company with over 2500 judges registered worldwide that provides judges for speech and debate tournaments and other academic competitions. He is the current Director of Speech at Concordia University Irvine, and formerly the Director of Forensics at Diablo Valley College when they won back-to-back state championship team sweeps titles.

Highlights of his competitive career include the 2011 NFA Informative National Champion, 2009 Phi Rho Pi Bovero-Tabor Award for Top Speaker, and 7 other national championship awards.

Debate Paradigm:

Don't go too fast.

Would prefer a traditional debate over a technical or theory debate.

I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.

I will go into details regarding my specific paradigm, but most of it boils down to a single idea: do not abuse your opponents.

I have been a part of the debate community for three years. I enjoy new and fresh ideas and argumentation styles. I am willing to listen to most types of arguments, but inclusivity is incredibly important to me. You may speed if you like, but if your opponents say slow, then slow down. I will vote you down if I believe you are spreading your opponents out of round.

When I weight arguments, I tend to value human rights and social justice over economic arguments. There are plenty of ways to make economic arguments into humans arguments, but I will not complete that argument for you. I need you to impact out your arguments and tell me why they matter.

While I won't complete arguments for debaters, I will warn you that if you run capitalism good, I'll probably look for any excuse to vote you down. I do not vote on potential abuse, I vote on proven abuse, and I do define harmful language as proven abuse even if you think you can talk your way out of it. You don't get to tell oppressed people whether or not they're being oppressed. Language and rhetoric are very important to me in promoting inclusivity in the debate space. Be mindful of what you say. I know the difference between a slip-up and not caring.

As far as Theory arguments go, I'm open to them as long as they are relevant. I also give a lot leeway one way or another depending on the Resolution and how much wiggle room the Aff team has in creating their plan.

At the end of it all, I don't care whether or not you're a pretty speaker. I care about the content of your arguments. Tell me why you should win. Pause to gather your thoughts if you need to, it will not affect your speaker points.

When judging IPDA, I ascribe to the principles of IPDA as prescribed by their constitution and/or by-laws. Hence, I expect a highly rhetorical and oratorical-based style/approach from both debaters. This means you lose my ballot if you insist on excessive speed, "spreading" or the act of stacking too many contentions, not being cordial, or the use of unnecessary meta-debate jargon and/or techniques. That being said, a basic knowledge and basic practice of debate theory is expected as well. A clear AFF structure is needed; even though I am open to various types of structure - it just needs to make sense. Regardless of chosen structure, please make sure tag lines are clear, evidence is clearly sourced, and however you connect your warrants (examples, narratives, etc.) should be clear as well. And it goes without saying that each argument should have impacts. For NEG, direct clash is your friend, but you should link any off-case positions to whichever NEG philosophy you've espoused. Just be clear as to what your overall approach is.

I have been coaching Parli, NFALD, and IPDA for several years, before that I competed in all three, so I've seen a lot. Mostly a flow judge.

Historical references make me happy because history provides a framework from which discussions can grow. Misuse of historical warrants makes me sad because bad faith arguments are the death of civilized society.

I definitely prefer case debate. Those who are careful about choosing their ground will find it fairly easy to win my ballot.

I sometimes vote on theory if I think that the AFF has questionable topicality, but it's always important to consider the time tradeoffs, because everyone will get confused if the whole debate is just theoretical.

I occasionally vote on a K, but only if you make it CLEAR and explain the theories plainly, for the judges AND your opponents. Respect is the key word here. I’m not a fan of abusive frameworks that are designed to box the other team out of the debate, so I'll probably look for a way to weigh case directly against the K because I believe that's the most functional way to view debate.

Evidence blocks are good because some facts work well together and this increases the efficiency of listing warrants... But canned arguments in Parli make me sad because there's an event for that and it's called LD. Having a favorite argument is not the same as having a canned argument, it's all about when and how you use it.

I basically never vote on RVIs, they're infinitely regressive and boring to hear.

This is a sport for talking; part of my job as a judge is to provide a theoretically level playing field which adheres to the rules of the event.

So... Tabula Rasa, but I'm still a debate coach doing the writing on that blank slate.