I'm not a debater.  I judge to fulfill my obligation as a parent with a child on the debate team.  That said, I have been involved in the debate community for years.  If it gets on my flow, I will consider the argument.  The organized, debater who makes sound well articulated arguments will likely succeed.

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Name: Sarah Osuna

I competed in LD on the Local and National Circuits for Citrus Valley High School in Redlands, CA from 2011-2015. I coached debate there a bit my senior year of high school too. I was fairly successful in high school, I have won and broken at multiple tournaments. I debated nationally and internationally for the University of La Verne from 2015-2019. I now do some private coaching, judging, and I go to the George Washington University pursuing my Masters.

TL;DR: Evaluate your impacts and do the work for me. Justify all arguments and explain to me how they work in the round. With sophisticated argumentation, make sure you understand the arguments you are running.

General Philosophy:

I evaluate things the way you tell me to in round. I do not want to have to do the work for you, please tell me how your arguments work against your opponents, and what they mean in the round. If there are no voting issues/standards for evaluating the debate, I default to examining who won which arguments and whether that means anything important. Debaters- tell me what you've won, why you've won it and how that means you've won the round.

Also- try not to be an asshole. I understand that a certain level of attitude and snark is enjoyable in round. I will not discredit women debaters for having attitude, because I feel like this activity holds a double standard- i.e. what is considered perceptualy dominant for men is considered being bitchy for women. That being said, do no be mean or rude to your opponent. When debating a novice or someone which you are clearly better than, there is a way to clearly win the debate without degrading your opponent. If you are an asshole, it does not mean you'll lose, but your speaks will suffer.

Framework:

When running stock issues, know the nuances and implications of the stock issues you're running. Its one thing to say that you're running the universal maxim, and another to understand how this functions in the round. The same is true for Util. That being said, I love innovative framework and standards. Think outside the box. I'm pretty open to anything you want to value as long as you can justify it. Valuing Justice because it's just, or the right thing to do is not the same as justification. Additionally, I'm not inclined to buy values of morality, without heavy justification as to why this should be valued. Please compare your framework to your opponents, and explain why you've won. Absent that, I will compare frameworks on my own and evaluate impacts based on the framework I've deemed better. So tell me why you've won your framework, or I'll evaluate it in a way you may not like.

Impacts:

link them back to your framework. Tell me what they mean inside the context of the round. Know the limits, brinks, and scope of your impacts. If you don't impact I'm not going to do it for you.

Theory:

I enjoy good theory. However, I see a lot of really bad theory. I generally tend to view theory as slightly whiny and a way to play a game rather than actually engage in an argument, value, and logic based debate. That being said, please make theory debates (should you choose to engage in them) clear and impact out voting issues. saying "voters- education- drop the debater" is not sufficient. I've seen a lot of 'small school' theory lately. I find it interesting, but also needs to be well warranted.

K's:

I like them. explain the link, brink and the alt, and again, tell me how it works in the round. A lot of times when questioned on the functionality of a K, many debaters do not know how it works. Do not run a K if you do not fully understand it, or if you did not write it yourself. It will be obvious.

DA's:

Run them, explain links clearly to the DAs, as well as inherency as to why your opponent links into them.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed (albeit, i have been out of the national circuit for a while), as long as you're clear. If you're not, I'll yell clear once. If you're still not clear, I'll yell slow once. Then I put my pen down. It's on you to make sure I get your arguments down.

Extensions:

saying "extend the (insert piece of evidence or argument)" and a brief description of said argument is enough to extend on the flow. However, just because an argument is extended does not mean it is impacted.

Voting issues:

I am a big fan of voting issues, you can have as many as you want (I have run 25 in the 2AR and won on all of them) but please make sure they are actual issues in the round. FRAMEWORK IS NOT A VOTER. it is a way in which to view arguments and impacts.

Prep time:

Utilize it the way you need to- I do not let unused prep flow into speaking time. Flex prep is okay

Evidence:

I reserve the right in calling for evidence after the round. I will do so if a) there is a substantial dispute over what the evidence says or b) it is significant in making a decision for the round. I will not call for evidence if i believe it to be falsified/misrepresentative. It is your job to call that out in the debate.

Speaker points:

30- you are quite posssibly the best speaker I have ever seen.

29-29.9 - very excellent speaker, you deserve the top speaker award at this tournament

28-28.9- you are a great speaker, you deserve a speaker award at this tournament

27-27.9 -you are an average speaker

26-26.9 - below average speaking, difficult to understand, ect

25-25.9 - clearly disinterested in the round, or unable to make valuable contribution in a round, gave up when the round was difficult

below a 25- you did something obviously offensive in round.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts! Good luck!

Lay judge 

Don't spread and don't make excessive evidence calls.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.

I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.