Murillo,+Gabe

Head Coach & Director of Recruiting - University of Oklahoma Debate 12 years judging / coaching high school 6 years judging / coaching college


 * 2011 update***

I am becoming more and more concerned with clarity in debates. I have decided to make the following my standard operating procedure:

I will call clear verbally and loudly each time there is a clarity problem until I feel that it should be obvious that I feel there are clarity problems.

If this is not responded to I will continue non-verbal signs that I cannot understand.

more importantly is how clarity will effect my decision

A) if I did not understand the argument due to clarity I will evaluate the argument as new the first time I understood the claim, warrant and impact

B) I will not call for cards I did not understand in speeches


 * 2010 update***

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." - scott harris

I couldn't agree more with the first paragraph of of Harris's new philosophy http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowJudgeInfo.aspx?PrefJudge=142

I find misuse of the term literally to be literally annoying, and although I don't think this effects my decision making too severely Russell suggested it was severe enough to include in an updated philosophy. He's not entirely wrong.


 * 2009 update***

I have judged college debates for a couple years now and feel the following things are themes in a lot of my decisions:

- I evaluate complete arguments (claim, warrant, impact) I tend to disregard or discredit anything short of this threshold

- I voted aff way more then I like last year here’s why, in clash of civilization debates the following scenarios seem to always happen A) A neg goes for framework against a K aff, but with no topicality component, generally speaking I vote aff B) A neg goes for generic K against a policy aff with a specific impact that is not specifically engaged by the negative, generally speaking I vote aff C) the aff screws up some component of the T debate, so the neg goes for T but fails to prove the relevance, importance or impact of their argument generally speaking I vote aff (side note - as I judge more I find myself less interested in complicated contrived T arguments. I love T debates but only when they are founded in either a strong base of evidence or the aff is obviously not topical)

- Cheap shot unwarranted or generally speaking silly theory arguments are a non-starter with me, it is very difficult for me to imagine most theory arguments as a reason to reject the team

- Nearly all process counterplans are not competitive

Other than these things I find myself voting for and enjoying all styles of arguments, in a lot of different situations.

If you only learn 3 things about me as a judge, learn these: - Make arguments - Engage the other teams arguments - Be conscious of how you treat other people in and out of debates. Showing respect for all participants in a debate is a necessity with me as a judge

I could write for days about my views in debate but that seems like a tedious task – if you have further questions feel free to contact me.

This is my first year judging college debate – I hope I will grow as a judge as the year progresses and will update my philosophy if any major changes occur – for now I think this should help -
 * Former Philosophy***

Big Picture:

The Elephant in the corner: a lot of people will wonder – “can I run a CP / DA in front of him” the answer is yes, I really enjoy good policy debates, I also love good topicality debates, despite my tendency to impact turn T.

No matter what you are going for an argument consists of a claim, a warrant and an impact, without all three you have not made a complete argument.

The critical / policy divide is ultimately arbitrary. I think the best criticism debates are ones that closely model the argumentation, weighing etc, that standard policy CP / DA debates follow. My choice to run the criticism was based on the literature I enjoyed researching, not a dislike for policy arguments.

Offense wins debates, but that does not mean you will lose if you only have defense, you just have to make something (IE your case impact) offense against the arguments they are winning.

I am the wrong judge to run your “racism good” strategy in front of

Argument Specific:

Topicality: its about competing interpretations, criticisms of T must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse for the community then the exclusion of the negatives ability to debate. T is never a reverse voting issue. K affirmatives should in some way affirm the resolution, I believe switch side debate is good, and think the best kind of education is formulating your ideas to fit the criterion of the resolution. I am very persuaded by negative arguments that the loss of core negative ground outweighs any affirmative education or reasonability arguments.

Framework: I don’t really feel framework is a voting issue, it just dictates how I evaluate the round. This is why topicality arguments are essential to win framework arguments on the negative. Be explicit about your framework on the affirmative and the negative. I’m not convinced that policy options are necessary to solve predictability etc, you will have to overcome this burden with a warrant in front of me.

Criticisms: I like explanation to be specific to the affirmative, this does not necessitate specific cards, instead you need specific logically examples that tie your argument to the affirmative. I am a sucker for the permutation. Don’t forget that your criticism needs an impact. If you are deciding between your normal K and an argument you think I’d like because I ran it please run your normal K, I do not particularly like / want to hear any more debates about the K’s I frequently ran.

DAs: Tell me which to evaluate first the Uniqueness or the link. Disad turns the case is damning when its not answered (or if it is true). Impact calculus is necessary to assure that I evaluate the DA in the same way you think it should be.

Theory: I am very hesitant to vote on “cheap shots”. My default is that theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument, this is not a reason you shouldn’t go for theory its just a reason why you will have to explain warrants as to why this is not true. I’m a surprisingly negative leaning on theory questions. Theory arguments are not immune from my larger criteria for arguments (claim, warrant, impact)

Counterplans: I don’t like consultation counterplans.