Ryan Corso, He/Him/His

Ph.D. Student, Graduate Assistant at Wayne State University

Email: ryancorsogonzales@gmail.com

Updated Fall 2023

About me

I competed on the competitive circuit in Parliamentary debate for 5 years, from 2014-2019. I began my competitive career at Moorpark Community College. I was a two-time state champion in California and a one-time National Champion at Phi Rho Pi. From there, I completed my last three years at Concordia University Irvine. I broke at the NPDA all three years at Concordia. In my senior year, my partner Benji Lange and I took 6th at the NPDA and 4th at the NPTE national championships. I received my master's in communication from the University of Louisville; I was previously the Director of Forensics at Schreiner University, where I coached LD, Parli, IPDA, and Speech. I'm now a Ph.D. Student my studies focus heavily on Rhetoric, Neoliberalism, Assemblages, and Post-Dialectics. I am a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach at Wayne State coaching NEDA and Policy. I have competed in Parli, LD, and IPDA. I am comfortable with policy, speed, kritiks, and theory.

Debate Overview:

I like to think that I understand debate fairly well, and I consider myself a very flow-centric judge. Debate is a game; you can run what you want and do what you want in front of me. I'm open to almost all arguments, (No pro racist, homophobic, or fascists args tho) just be prepared to justify your actions and tell me where to vote (This is what the rebuttals are for). I ran every policy arg in the book, just as much as I ran Kritiks, however, I probably read theory the most.

Winning in front of me is simple, provide an ample framework, clear links, and terminal impacts. Win the flow, and collapse to the argument you believe is the clearest and most compelling path to vote on. I am open to hearing about new positions, and I will always do my best to understand the position that you're reading to the best of my ability. Debate is a game, and I believe in the multiple world's paradigm, so win the game the way you like.

Theory:

Theory should consist of a clear interp, and a unique violation (that explains the operative nature of that specific interp), standards that frame the offense and impacts. I don't default to theory being A Priori anymore and will evaluate it under either DTD or DTA, you tell me. RVI's are always illegitimate.

Kritiks:

Kritiks need a CLEAR link for me to even consider voting for it. Make sure you have specific warrants and nuance in your links to explain how it uniquely works in this specific round.

Here's a list of Kritiks that I read while I competed to give you an idea of what I'm familiar with. Off the top of my head Neoliberalism, Anarchy, Marx, Whiteness, Satire, Absurdism, Deleuze and Guattari, Fragility, Existentialism, Set Col, Feminism, Cyborg Fem, Ecocide, Baudrillard, MLM, Nietzsche, Reps, and Rhetoric.

Speaker Points:

I am not a fan of the speaker point system, as a way to evaluate rhetorical capabilities. I view speaker points as a method to reward good arguments and strategies. I give speaker points based on the idea "Whoever did the best debating".

Final notes:

* I do not know how to judge unfalsifiable arguments. ex: religion based kritiks

*I have a VERY HIGH Threshold to vote on a "Call out Kritik"... I do not feel that it is my job to determine in round who is or isn't a good person. This doesn't mean I won't vote on kritiks that call out bad rhetoric or whatever that occurred in round, because I will for an in round link is easily verifiable, while outside aspects are almost impossible.

*DO NOT belittle or demean your opponents, good debate is a genuine debate. The community is really important to maintain.

Good Luck, Have Fun!

I believe it is best to disclose the bad news first. I work for a government agency. As such, I cannot engage in behaviors that could call into question my non-partisan affiliation. What this means for debate is that if your argument would likely ruffle the feathers of a politician who has no understanding of thought experiments, then I cannot endorse it. Specifically, proposals that reject the state, reject capitalism, etc. There is no specific topic area this excludes, rather it excludes some arguments used to justify topical cases. Use your judgment, and if you have to think more than five seconds about it, either go with a different argument or strike me.

If you've made it this far, I have good news: you get to argue in front of a real-life government official who knows how things work in the real world and would be on the frontline(s) of your case impacts Congratulations?

In terms of specific debate mechanics, I have certain preferences. Conditionality itself doesn't bother me. Performative contradictions do. There is no reason one cannot assemble arguments that do not contradict across multiple worlds on a topic with this much literature. Also, if the affirmative makes a ‘conditionality bad’ argument, I interpret each conditional argument as a violation until I’m told to think otherwise. Another thing that rustles my jimmies is when people read into their laptop rather than into the room. I will say clear once, then the second time I will lay down my pen until you start making sense. This does mean I flow on paper, so rest assured that I am listening to your argument and not goofing around on my laptop.

Lastly, I'm not well-versed in much of the critical literature, so if you are going to run a philosophically-oriented argument above a 7th grade reading level it would be best to assume I have no idea what you are talking about because I probably don't. I'm not going to pretend I understand your argument for the sake of making myself look smart. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask before the round.

Name: Jeff Geers

School Affiliation: University of Dayton

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: ~18

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, Extemporaneous Debate, Policy

What is your current occupation? Instructor, Debate Coach

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery - I like to hear a dynamic, energetic speaking style, but this isn't an auctioneer tryout; take your time and clearly present your points

Flowing/Note-Taking - While I might be flowing your argument in my notes, I'm listening for the clash of opposing 'big ideas' - My final decision in the round is based more on who convinced me overall, not whether any one specific point was addressed or not.

Do you value Argument over Style, Style over Argument or Argument and Style equally? Both are important, but in the end a clear, cogent argument will win out over charismatic but superficial debating.

I value creativity in critical thinking, and like to see new and different approaches to issues. However, squirrel-y attempts to trap opponents with non-topical distractions put me in a bad mood...

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

I am the Director of Debate at Ball State University, a team that routinely competes in NEDA Debate. I have a Masters degree in Communication, with an emphasis in Technology and Society. I also have Bachelors degrees in Communication and Philosophy. My pronouns are He, Him, His, though I would rather be referred by "Judge" or "Panel" respectively.
Email Chain: william.nunley@bsu.edu

College-

NEDA Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low points. Just because you win a debate does not necessarily mean you did it with the best speech. Argument quality will always be preferred over speaking ability. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: I am fine with speed. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity.

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

Disclosure: I will not automatically vote for someone simply because their opponent did not disclose. If your opponent is reading something extremely unorthodox I will hear the argument if it is well fleshed out.

Weighing and Impacts: spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. You will not change my mind, but your speaks are likely to be lowered as a result.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

High School-

LD/PF Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outweigh the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I will only say "speed" twice if you are going too fast for me. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity.

Partner Cohesion (PF specific): Partners should be able to function in rounds as a single unit. This means that one another's argumentation should follow a single line of thought, without fear of contradicting the other. Support your partner, they're your best asset in a round!

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I was a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. Ensure clarification where need be, and provide me clear metrics for evaluating your content and the round.

Theory/T: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interpretation and the violation clear.

Disclosure: I will not automatically vote for someone simply because their opponent did not disclose. If your opponent is reading something extremely unorthodox I will hear the argument if it is well fleshed out.

Plans/CPs: This is fine. Do it well, do it right. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are ok. Once again, If you do it right you are fine.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. Please do not run K unless it is good. Uniqueness is a big one for me. I love to see something Unique if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. With that said, I prefer to not watch K debate. Only run a K if you feel like its necessary, not for the fun of it.

Weighing and Impacts: spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. You will not change my mind, but your speaks are likely to be lowered as a result.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

------------------------------------

Big Questions

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you. I will not reward any arguments that step outside of the true intention of big questions; meaning, running a K or theory shell will be heavily looked down upon. This format is meant to stimulate interesting and meaningful interaction with a topic, therefore traditional debate will be rewarded on my ballot.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outweigh the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: You should speak at a pace that is easy to follow. Big Questions should not be a competition of speed; rather, I will reward debaters for meaningful engagement within the round over how many arguments they can refute against. If you are speaking to quickly, I will verbalize "Speed" so that you slow down.

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Schools

Do not run from the heart of the motion and engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes and you'll do great. I competed and now coach in the Worlds format of College Debate. I am very well versed in this format. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate.

Ensure that you have a logical structure to the progression and development of the bench. I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you

Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through a framework system. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story with syllogistic link chains: make the implicit, explicit.

World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each of these judging-areas seriously and you will do well in this event.

Note on POI: I will not give time signals in round, I expect that students will keep their own times and not ask questions during protected time. POI's can be either a question OR statement, with students getting a full 15 seconds to ask the question. As the speaker, do not cut off POI's mid sentence, I will verbally say "time" if the question goes over 15 sec.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

I graduated from Wayne State University with a BFA in Communication Studies. I have three years' experience in public forum debate. I am currently working on my master's degree in communication studies. While doing so, I am coaching Wayne’s PF team. Also, I have debated in Policy and judged Policy.