Judge Philosophies
Bhavin Jindal - Claremont
n/a
Chris Skiles - Cal Poly SLO
Colin Murphy - Davis
n/a
Dave Zimny - Los Medanos
<p>~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA<br /> BACKGROUND: I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions. I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate. This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge. Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament.<br /> JUDGING PHILOSOPHY: I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values. In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues. I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate. Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me. I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice.<br /> PRESENTATION: Debate is a speech activity. Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments. Speed generally doesn’t bother me. If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.” I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams. Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points. I have no objections to sitting while speaking. As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points. I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation. I will never award fewer than 20 points.<br /> PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS: I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds. I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse. I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques.<br /> DEBATE THEORY: Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory. I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves. I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you. That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions. I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me. I believe that:<br /> A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs. If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed.<br /> The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan. I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans.<br /> The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government.<br /> Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan. Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan. “Fiat turns the link.”<br /> The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive. This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal.<br /> PLEASE NOTE: I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory. If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins.<br /> Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience. Let’s all have some fun!<br /> </p> <p> </p>
Hannah Reyes - La Verne
n/a
Jennifer Baney - Los Medanos
n/a
John Patrick - Cal Poly SLO
<p>If you don't suck, you'll probably win rounds. Just sayin'. </p>
Katie Lucido - Los Medanos
n/a
Natalie Holland - La Verne
n/a
Rob Ruiz - La Verne
n/a
Salar Malik - Cal Poly SLO
n/a