Judge Philosophies

Andrew Morgan -- University of the Pacific

 

Andrew Eilola -- Bradley University

n/a

Bryan Zaldana -- Hired Judge

n/a

Carl Weddle -- Yuba Community College

n/a

Dana Lovecchio -- Hired Judge

n/a

Daniel Lopez -- Hartnell College

n/a

Douglas Mungin -- Solano Community College

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.

Dylan McIlvenna-Davis -- Hired Judge

n/a

Edward Kunkle -- East Los Angeles College

n/a

Elida Sobalvarro -- Hired Judge

n/a

Estelle Piper -- Hired Judge

n/a

Holland Smith -- California State University, Los Angeles


Janay Bombino -- Hired Judge

n/a

Jasmine Kharma -- Hired Judge

n/a

Jim Dobson -- Las Positas College

n/a

Jimmy Gomez -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Jolene Moore -- Butte Community College

n/a

Joshua Tiquia -- Hired Judge

n/a

Joslynn Howard -- Hired Judge

n/a

Katelyn Gonsalves -- San Francisco State University

n/a

Kendricks Anderson -- Hired Judge

n/a

Lorene Miller -- Solano Community College

I've been teaching COMM classes at Solano College for 30 years. During that time, I have taught Argumentation and Debate at least 23 of those years. So here's what you need to know:

1. I am a flow judge. I use a reasonable person's paradigm when judging. However, it is up to the opposing team to identify counter-intuitive arguments.

2. As a general rule, I don't like T arguments. I feel that they become a "whining" strategy for the Negative. If you decide to use T as a strategy, make sure that it's a real issue and not just a shell.

3. I also don't like K arguments, for much of the same reason. Most topics are debatable and a reasonable person should be able to take either side.

4. I prefer that the Negative clash with the Affirmative case. I feel that is one of the two main burdens of the Negative. (Along with supporting the Status Quo) Since many Negs run counter-plans these days, I will entertain that as a strategy. Though it always feels like you are shooting yourself in the foot. Go ahead and shoot.

5. I expect both teams to stand when they are speaking. Your power comes from that posture.

6. I also expect that team members won't prompt their partner while the partner is speaking. You have to trust your partner. And if they screw up, it's your job to fix it. I have been known to drop teams that prompt in spite of my request that they don't. Listen to me. I'm the judge. And it's my rules during the round.

7. As a flow judge, I can keep up with speed. But if the opposing team can't keep up, I would expect that you would slow it down. Spreading doesn't really add that much more content. Just bad breathing.

8. Identify voting issues when we get down to the last two speeches. But then, that's just good practice, no?

9. Any humor would be appreciated as would any reference to Zombies, Star Trek, and Video Games.


Madeleine Calvi -- Speech at Berkeley

n/a

Manish Khanal -- Hired Judge

n/a

Mark Faaita -- CSU Chico


Meredith Mountjoy -- Hired Judge

n/a

Mikayla Holzinger -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Natalie Kellner -- Las Positas College

n/a

Pablo Ramirez -- San Francisco State University

 

Patrick Moe -- Diablo Valley College

n/a

Paxton Attridge -- California State University, Los Angeles

In NPDA, I find clear warranting in-case and impact calculus very helpful, particularly direct comparison between the world each side's impacts create. I am more than fine following quick speed in delivery, though clarity is still appreciated in both delivery and argumentation (the latter particularly within rebuttal). Argumentative consistency helps me in adjudicating, and so clear disclaimer regarding which arguments within cases are being addressed or rebutted is very useful. In line with this organization's values, I value more critically-directed debate, though this approach does not necessarily require argumentative structures idiosyncratic to NPDA or other forms of debate. I believe that the debate space should be safe for protected populations, and behavior that threatens these populations will be at the very least remarked upon on the ballot, and may impact my judging decision if egregious. My familiarity in debate is more philosophically and policy-directed, though arguments making other appeals will still receive full consideration.

Randy Carver -- Contra Costa College

n/a

Sage Russo -- City College San Francisco

n/a

Sean Connor -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Shannan Troxel-Andreas -- Butte Community College

n/a

Sheelah Bearfoot -- Speech at Berkeley

n/a

Steve Storer -- Hired Judge

n/a

Steve Robertson -- Contra Costa College

n/a

Suzanne Ruckle -- Yuba Community College

n/a

Tim Heisler -- Las Positas College

n/a