Collis October -- City Univ. of New York

Use the back button on your browser to return to the pref entry page or tournament entry list. The judge philosophy appears in a different format at the bottom of the page.

Judging philosophy:

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY – Collis October: CUNY

Experience – Debated for 4 years in a Public Forum setting in high school, and one year as a college policy debater. First year as a college judge, some high school judging and judged practice debates for team.

I haven't debated for a while, and I’m new to judging tournaments, however my knowledge on the topic literature is fairly extensive.

I enjoy debating; that’s why I’m here judging. I think debate is an excellent way to display your critical thinking skills and as such it is critical that learning takes place in this space; a space where the debaters are competitive while having fun. I do prefer some augments over others. While we all have our own preferences; I will strive to exclude those preferences from my judging archetype.

I'm fine with questions after rounds and will try my best to answer them. Rudeness and arguing are very disrespectful and harmful to the community. We are all fallible and prone to make mistakes. If you I think made a bad decision I apologize; after all it is a learning experience for everyone involved.

Generalities:

The affirmative should propose a topical plan.

Don’t tell me I should vote your way .Explain why I should vote that way.

Not a big fan of speed but I can handle it to an extent:

Tags lines should be read so I can understand what you’re trying to tell me

Slow down and articulate author names and dates.

Signposting is important this help me with the flow.

Evidence provides warrants, and it is your job to make comparisons between your evidence and your opponent’s evidence. Rebuttals should help to develop the debate. Line by Line argumentation is effective, but the bigger picture must also be examined.

Make cross-applications direct, apparent, and reasonable. All extensions should be fully constructed or new responses will be accepted (its only fair)

An exciting CX plays an important part in assigning speaker points.

Defence by itself almost certainly won't win the debate, bring some offence to the table when you’re neg .


Arguments:

Framework: I love a framework argument. This is at the top of my evaluation for the debate round. Establish a framework for me to evaluate the round and a reason for me to vote for you inside that framework. Alternative frameworks must be explicitly defined and thoroughly explained.


Theory: I have a very low threshold for theory, especially when entrusted to novices who have little to no idea what they are debating about. However, I do believe that it is an important aspect of debate. But it ought not to be abused itself. That being said, I will vote on theory that if it is well developed. Time need to be spent articulating why it’s abuse. Simply reading prewritten cards will not cut it.



Kritiks: My partner and I went for the kritiks very often; however, kritikal debates are not debates I prefer to judge. Other than the capitalism k, or terror talk K and maybe Heidegger and Nietzsche, I will probably only have a cursory understanding and knowledge of your literature base. I will do my best to understand your argument, but don't assume I know the literature. Any thing I find esoteric will not be on the top of my list as a voting issue.


Counterplans and Disads : I love them and ran them with my partner. Textual and functional competition dictates whether a counterplan is legitimate or not. I prefer agent counterplans as I think that having an interpretation of competition is more persuasive than a consultation counterplan. Both Dispos and Con Counterplans are aweful. For Disads the link story is critical for me. In addition, the assessment of how the disad works in the new world of the affirmative plan is important.


In the end have fun!













Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
WestPtNov3NYUGrant28.7Kim28MUReiskopf29Kellog28.5NEG
RutgersNov1BingGeorge27.5Pinchuk26WCSUGiannini28MoonSeok20NEG
RutgersNov2NSRubin25Towell24MUBreder27.5Mills28AFF
RutgersNov5WCSUMullally27.5Rollmann27.9MURoman28Todd28.5NEG
RutgersJV6NSFowle28.5Lowenthal27.5NYUTrench27Vera26.5AFF
RutgersNovDoubMUDeTommaso0Sime0NSRubin0Towell0AFF 3-0 (AFF)
CornellNov2MURoman27Todd28NewarkMacCord25Williams24AFF
CornellNov3NavyHerrera28.5Howe29MUKellog27Sime26NEG
CornellNov4NavyFischer21.5Lozano19MUAbou22Landau19.5AFF
CEDAEastNov3NYUHusain28Itlong28.5WCSUBonacci26.5PlaceHolder26AFF

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: