Last changed on
Tue February 26, 2019 at 1:17 AM PDT
Judge Philosophy
Eric David Garcia, University of Oklahoma
I did LD value debate in high school. I did NDT debate for Cal State Fullerton for 4 years. I qualified for the NDT in 1992 and 1993. I coached parliamentary debate NPDA/NPTE from 2003 to 2012. My flow sheeting skills have declined with age. I will probably yell "slow" more than I used to.
I most often look to the dropped, impacted arguments first. If no criterion is given, I will default to net benefits, but really I want you to tell me what criteria to use or how to evaluate arguments in the round.
I am more open to procedurals than most judges. I am open to voting on potential abuse and competing interpretations. I am open to theory debates. I barely tolerate critiques. Critique debaters don't use tag lines. I have no idea what to write because the debaters should be using tags for the audience. I detest projects. Projects largely damage NPDA by ignoring the topic.
For rebuttals, I value weighing likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility, and timeframe. If the debaters do not do the analysis for me, I will default to my non-tabula rasa, real world bias.
My real world bias is Libertarian. Take the 1st right on economics and the 1st left on sex and that's my bias. AOC and Bernie Sanders are economic idiots and endorse statist violence. Also, what you ingest for pleasure or do in the bedroom is none of my business. In the real world, government should follow the Non-Aggression Principle. End the War on Drugs. Consent and voluntarism are beautiful. Coercion is terrible.
Being snippy toward the opponents will affect your speaker points. Constantly feeding your partner answers will affect their speaker points. Once or twice is ok, but don’t overdo it.
For parliamentary debate, please call points of order. I’ll probably catch the new arguments on my own, but it doesn’t hurt to call it.