Judge Philosophies
Axel Aguilar - CUI
n/a
Ayush Tibrerwal - 21st
n/a
Brandon Fletcher - Judges
n/a
Caitlin Drees - Judges
n/a
Chathi Anderson - Judges
n/a
Chloe Han - Judges
n/a
Christiana Patton - CUI
n/a
Colin Squyres - Judges
n/a
Eli Wilson - Judges
n/a
Haidyn Christoffel - CUI
n/a
Harrison Martin - Judges
n/a
Matt Volz - Judges
n/a
Noelle Planchon - Judges
n/a
Oksana Hack - Judges
n/a
Sarah LeGrande - Judges
n/a
Sean Nowlan - CUI
My Real Philsosophy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kRqB17nWzvRx369XxFLGIEFYwNma_JbICwaffeb40Q0/edit?usp=sharing
Anyway,
Debate isn't a game, it's performance art. Being Kairotic, practicing proper elocution, and Chironomia in all speeches is a fantastic sign of a winning debater. Your plan text or advocacy should be performed twice, as all good singing, rapping, and poetry should include repetition.
Case debate:
I evaluate every line of text as an independent argument, and vote aff on presumption. Only the negative is entitled to fiat by default, the affirmative's ground in debate is that "should" means deriving offense that the actor "should consider" taking the action of the resolution.
Debaters should display a competent amount of ethos, logos, and pathos. Teams are autodropped if they make more than two logical fallacies inside of the round. No, the fallacy fallacy is not real.
Critique's:
I evaluate the Kay by first starting with the roll of the ballot, usually by rolling dice. If a team tells me to roll a sphere or different object I am open to it. I don't believe that you believe fiat is real unless you destroy all the fiat currency in your pocket. The critique is weighed first on the basis of how much I sincerely believe that you believe what you are saying. If you run a critique once in front of me, and don't run it in every other round that follows, I'll vote you down because I know you were lying. The Bible says that lying is a sin.
Theory:
Since debate is a performance art, interpretations must be delivered in the form of interpretive dance. I default to reasonability instead of competing interps, so whoever has the higher capacity for reason in the round should win. Voters may include but are not limited to: fairness, education, fun, freedom, and vibes.
Other Stuff:
I will not vote on morally reprehensible arguments like Joe Biden is bad, US heg bad, or capitalism bad. My ego is too fragile and tied up in my patriotism to handle hearing these pillars of my life to be argued against.
Since debate is a collegiate activity, arguments you make should be in a distinct and different form other arguments I have heard in the past. Plagiarism is not allowed at most universities, and I will report you to the Deep provost of El Camino (Adam Testerman) if you use arguments identical to others without sourcing them.
Shadow extensions can only be used when the lights are turned off, otherwise it is too bright in the room for the shadows to be very strong. If you ask your coach about "turn off the lights" theory, that's what its about.
The MO speech is a constructive speech, and therefore new arguments can be introduced. If the negative wants to read new advocacies they may. If you don't agree, check the NPDA website for its bylaws. The MO should take this opportunity as a constructive to levy out more Disads, afterall it is call NP-Da, not NP-Ad.
RVI voting issues and IVI voting issues are one shot kills, if you drop an RVI or IVI I will vote you down.
Please stop using hygiene exclusive language. "Conditionality," "topicality," and "cleanly extended" all create environments hostile to debaters who can't afford products like topical ointments, conditioner, or deodorant.
/end
Shaun O'Neil - Judges
n/a
Tess Halbert - Judges
n/a