Santa Clara U Copeland Invitational Tournament
2020 — Santa Clara, CA/US
Debate Judges Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in college and became partial to the original ideas for CEDA (value debate). I have judged Parliamentary debate and Public Forum debate at the high school and collegiate level. This is my fourth year judging Parliamentary debate at Santa Rosa Junior College. I consider myself a “real-world” judge. I will only vote on dropped arguments if they are necessary and significant. If an argument is dropped, and it is irrelevant, then I am unlikely to be persuaded that this is a “voter” in and of itself. In awarding speaker points, I am very influenced by whether you are respectful toward one another. I don’t understand why one would be rude to a fellow competitor. Skill is revealed in the argumentation, not the attitude. I can tolerate speed as long as you enunciate and make your tag lines clear. I appreciate direct clash and refutation. In terms of the construction of arguments, I prefer a logical link structure, and I won’t make the leap for you; if the other side drops your argument, but your claim is untenable and is supported by weak links, I won’t vote for it. In my day, we called this “death on the flow” arguments. If you claim that a lack of recycling leads to nuclear war, I’m going to need you to help me make that connection: A LOT. I am not a fan of K. Unless you can convince me that your K really impacts out in the real world; I suggest making arguments against case.
I competed in high school (NDT) and college debate (CEDA). I have judged and coached for Parliamentary Debate. I am objective, although not entirely tabula rasa. I will vote on K and T arguments, and I do not allow my personal opinions to influence my understanding of the topic; however, I do insert myself regarding blatantly illogical statements, or purposefully fallacious reasoning. Debate is a reasoned activity which should sufficiently incorporate strategy, but it should not be "gamey" to the point of irrationality. I flow, understand, and organize well, which means that I will know where you are on the flow and what you are talking about without needing extra elaboration. In advance, thank you for taking your time to engage in this extremely important activity.
I can flow. No problem with speed. I can and do vote on T and solvency. Not a big fan of kritiks but I'll listen if you provide a legit framework. See myself as a policy maker.
I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.
It's up to the debaters how I evaluate the round - you work it out; I listen. Assume that I am intelligent and knowledgeable about the world. I have no preference for how you debate except I believe that everyone should be courteous and respectful. I feel like I can keep up with most debates, if you are too fast or too mumbly, I will let you know verbally.
For evidence debates, even if you use speechdrop or some other way to give me a copy of your evidence, I believe it is your job to read the arguments in a way that I can understand without me reading along with you. I don't like having to read the arguments myself.
Tell me why I should vote AFF/NEG, it helps if you:
- Present a clear link story
- For Kritiks, give me a reason to prefer your role of the ballot
-For Perms, is it mutually exclusive
Be respectful to your opponents, in regards to spreading.
I competed in Parliamentary Debate for a couple of years in high school and now am a third-year member for Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley. I love debate for its creativity, diversity of arguments, and critical thinking.
- I will flow your round. Unless otherwise convinced, I will vote for the team that has the most potent and persuasive offense on the flow
- Please, please, please collapse on the negative to one position. I have made mistakes before on the flow in messy rounds when the negative does not collapse and it makes me sad. I do not actively seek out judge intervention, but it might happen when the flow gets too messy.
- Also, please explain the implications of you buzz words/taglines. Recently, I have found myself voting against technical debate (much to my chagrin) because I do not think buzz words have been adequately contextualized to the round. It is much like fleshing out an impact. I want to see the entire reasoning behind the argument (e.g. it is not sufficient to say "perm" without a perm text or it is not sufficient to say "frames them out" without specific interactive analysis).
- It is the burden of the affirmation to do something besides the status quo (make offense); if neither team has offense by end of round I will most likely begrudgingly vote negative
- Default Roll of Ballot (ROB): Vote for the team with the best post-fiat policy option
- Default Roll of Judge (ROJ): Vote for the team that best functions under the ROB
- Default hierarchy of arguments: theory > kritik > case (but again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable)
- Default framing of impacts: magnitude > probability > timeframe (yet again, this is all determined by how the debate round is framed and is thus highly variable). I also will default to proximal impacts first. Also, if I perceive rhetorical violence in round against me or a participant, not only will I dock speaks but I will also (probably) vote you down.
- My default treatment of permutations are as tests of competition and not advocacies
- My default framework of theory is competing interpretations. I will also default to potential abuse before proven abuse.
- I protect against new arguments in the final two speeches
- If I say "clear" it is because I cannot understand you. If I say "slow" it is because I cannot flow as fast as you are talking. Feel free not to change your behavior, but be wary that I may miss some of your arguments (and I might consider arguments later as shadow extensions to my flow and disregard them)
On the meat of debate:
Plan: Please have an explicit text and solvency; the more clear, the better. Reading plan text twice is a smart strategy if one decides to spread.
Advantage/Disadvantage: The more fleshed out the better. If it is separated into uniqueness, links, and impacts, it makes my job much easier. Be sure uniqueness is flowing in the right direction for your links, the links are sturdy, and the impacts are terminated (well-developed).
Theory: When running theory, be organized (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters or some equally viable system). I am okay with voters being cross-applied. Be careful with the wordings of your interpretations. Responses to theory should be organized ("we meets," counter interpretations, counter standards, and standard defense or some equally viable system).
Kritiks: Kritiks are the heart and joy of debate. That said, if you read an affirmative kritik, be sure you have a clear out against theory arguments. On negative kritiks, make sure that you have a clear framework, links, impact, and alternative or equally viable structure. If some parts are missing, it will be difficult to win the kritik. (Though, I may be a bit of a hack on critical arguments, I will still try to limit the backfilling I do).
Counterplan (CP): Make sure the CP is well fleshed out and explicit on why the affirmative cannot permutate (textual competition is a weak argument and not very convincing; try to look for functional competition or net benefits to the CP).
Speaker Points: They will probably be between 26-30