Loy,+Robert

I competed in policy debate for about 4 years at Cal State Northridge. Currently, I'm a second year graduate student in the Communication Studies Department as well a second year forensics coach. Besides competing, I've judged a hand-full of debate rounds at the high school and university level. Since my time participating in this activity, my paradigm has been dynamic. Every debate round that I've been in has given me the opportunity to construct a new perspective in debate and as a critic this upcoming year, I see no reason why that should change. This activity is about expanding our knowledge in each round we have together, so lets make the best of it.

Here's a current paradigm I have before the season begins. I'm not too picky about the arguments you choose to run, just be good at what you do and I will have a great time judging the round. I do have some preferences though...

The plan should affirm the resolution. This year, we should be talking about energy in some way. Topic specific plans are helpful in learning more about the resolution and the subject at hand. This doesn't mean I'm closed off to creative AFF's but I came ready to learn about energy and the NEG team probably did too.

Speed reading: I'm not the biggest fan of spreading but I can handle it. Be clear and articulate your arguments well and I'll get it on the flow. The better my flow, the better your odds are at winning. I'm especially persuasive when debaters slow down their pace and have a conversation in the rebuttal speeches. If you can construct a narrative as to why you win, this will only help you when I'm in back of the room.

Kritiks: I enjoy kritiks that make sense to me. The only way this is possible is if you explain it well. Often times novice debaters will read a K and not know what the ALT is talking about. Frame the world in the lens of the K, explain it well and I'll consider it.

CP: Last year, I noticed that I would vote for CP's/perms very often. I'm interested in plan/CP comparisons since it gives us something to think about. Although I'm not too big on CP Theory. If you must, explain it well.

Theory: Same thing applies to theory, I'm not too heavy in this area. As long as it's articulated to me then I will vote either way.

DA: Oh Disads... I find it irritating how teams run multiple DA scenarios (3 or more) and end of dropping them throughout the debate. I do enjoy an amazing NEG strat that includes maybe 1 or 2 of those scenarios. If there's a developed disad and a possible risk in the final speeches, I will vote for you.

Topicality/Framework:: A great debate mentor of mine once said, "You should run T in every round...why not?" Although I hold this true, I think teams should only run T if they're going to do something with it. It's not a persuasive argument in front of me if it isn't your a priori issue. Make it important in the round, explain your interpretation, prove your abuse and this will be the first thing I will evaluate at the end of the round. If not, just drop it if the AFF is topical. Don't waste our time. As for framework, I vote either way.