Judge Philosophies
Alan Fishman - DVC
n/a
Ana Comeseno - CCSF
Cody Peterson - MJC
Daniel Brylawski - CCSF
Douglas Mungin - Solano CC
I risk sounding hella basic by stating that I am only interested in "good" arguments but I am. For me, debate is the engagement with world making. We all realize our words at 9am in the morning on an empty college campus does not really change national and international discourse, but in this particular round and room it does. We take these conversations with us in how we engage in the world. So debate comes down to these stories we tell and argue. So all speeches need to focus on the impact and larger stories of the round. I am cool with Topicality but you need to tell me how this really impacts the round, the same for Ks and other theoretical arguments. If you are the gov/aff your case needs to be tight. You have prep time, do not make me do the the work for you. For both teams: Don't drop anything, treat each with respect, roadmap, be nice to your partner, time yourself, drink water, smile and have fun. We are all nerds talking really fast in an empty classroom on a Saturday and Sunday. Chill out.
Fletcher Wingfield - SRJC
Henry Tolchard - SRJC
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
I have been teaching argumentation and debate for 25 years. I am not a debate coach, but have judged debate rounds for as long as I've been teaching debate. Here's what you need to know coming into the debate: First, I believe that all forensics events are public speaking events. I expect speakers to stand and deliver. As long as lawyers, politicians, and preachers stand, then our community should as well. Second, I feel strongly AGAINST prompting your partner. Again, in the real world a speaker has to stand on their own. Many times debaters interrupt their partner and the partner loses their train of thought. The more egregious the prompting, the more likely it will be that I drop a team. Third, I'm not a fan of topicality arguments. I would rather the the opposition/negative clash with the government/affirmative team. If you want to run topicality, make sure that it is warranted and that you have nothing to say against the affirmative. Fourth, I usually don't vote on K arguments (in a similar fashion as T arguments). Finally, your university/college/coaches have invested time and money into this endeavor. Treat it with respect.
Kevin McDermott-Swanson - SRJC
Mark Faaita - Chico
<p>I value debate because i believe it creates a space to engage in critical thinking and intelectual creativity. I appreciate arguments that are rooted in logic and reason, and I feel that leaves plenty of room for procedurals, K's, and case debate. Well warranted arguments are appreciated. Keep in mind that each of your positions are ultimately a part of an overarching story, and a story should be fairly easy to follow. There are no positions that I am adverse to. Speed wise, I haven't been spread out thus far this season, if that happens in a round I will verbalize it on the basis of fairness. I can't evaluate the arguments properly if they are not on my flow, but I don't expect you to be able to read my mind. I may ask for a line or two after the speech if I feel it is needed. My feedback this season has seemed to revolve around the importance of questions, the logical flow of arguments, and people missing the obvious. Also, I realize that debte is competitive, but competition can be fun, so have fun! </p>
Matt Maki - MJC
Samantha Campbell - Ohlone
n/a
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
<p>I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I'm very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I'm also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you're being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent's voters. I personally hate spreading, so I'm very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it's still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why.</p> <p>Don't be mean and let's make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.</p>
Scott Laczko - Chico
<p>Copied over from tabroom. My basic beliefs about debate have not changed. for LD ... rules are debatable the more like policy debate you make the round for me the happier i'll be</p> <p>Updated 10/29/13</p> <p> I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points.</p> <p>To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico</p> <p>the reason you read the philo- </p> <p>Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me. </p> <p>stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. </p> <p>If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together.</p> <p>K's- holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the liturture base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do?</p> <p>T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse</p> <p>C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized.</p> <p>case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days. </p> <p>theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team</p>