Judge Philosophies
Agatha Attridge - Cal State LA
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.
Andrew Morgan - UOP
Andrew Eilola - BUST
n/a
Bryan Zaldana - Hired
n/a
Carl Weddle - Yuba College
n/a
Dana Lovecchio - Hired
n/a
Daniel Lopez - Hartnell
n/a
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.
Dylan McIlvenna-Davis - Hired
n/a
Edward Kunkle - ELAC
n/a
Elida Sobalvarro - Hired
n/a
Estelle Piper - Hired
n/a
Holland Smith - Cal State LA
Janay Bombino - Hired
n/a
Janene Whitesell - Solano CC
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.
Jasmine Kharma - Hired
n/a
Jim Dobson - LPC
I prefer to see debate rounds as something that a lay person could watch and think was cool. Rapid delivery, technicalities, and rude people are not what I am looking for. A lively and fun debate with good attitudes is what I will want to see.
If it looks good for general public speaking it should look good for debate.
Jimmy Gomez - OCC
Debate philo: Speed is not good. Be respectful of each other, but some lite cattiness and shade is always fun. Focus on arguments rather than the peripheral stuff. We are here to debate not to win on technicalities. I time road maps, sis so you better get in to it.
Jolene Moore - Butte
Joshua Tiquia - Hired
n/a
Joslynn Howard - Hired
n/a
Katelyn Gonsalves - SFSU
n/a
Kendricks Anderson - Hired
n/a
Madeleine Calvi - Speech at Berkeley
n/a
Manish Khanal - Hired
n/a
Mark Faaita - CSU Chico
In all forms of debate I prefer arguments that are well reasoned and have supporting evidence. I am open to just about any kind of argument, but I think that more abstract/philosophical arguments typically run the risk of being easily leveraged against the team deploying them in the round. There are few to no arguments that I think will hear in a round and immediately disregard. i vote for arguments I don't like/disagree with all of the time. Please, please, please do not be rude to your opponents. It's just not a good look and creates a tension in the room that doesn't need to be there.
Meredith Mountjoy - Hired
n/a
Mikayla Holzinger - OCC
Natalie Kellner - LPC
I am an Individual Event judge. I value clarity of structure, specificity of examples & illustrations, preciseness of voting criteria, and (above all else) a delivery that enables ease of understanding for the listener. Avoid "debate speak" at all costs....I will not understand you, and if I do not understand you then you can not win the ballot. Civility is also of key importance. I will look at an IPDA debate as if it were an interactive Persuasive Speaking round: be clear, be organized, be understandable, be engaging. I can't be any more clear than that I think.
Pablo Ramirez - SFSU
Patrick Moe - DVC
Randy Carver - CCC
n/a
Sage Russo - CCSF
Sean Connor - OCC
I am primarily an IE Coach, however I also appreciate a good debate.
Spreading: Dont do it. It defeats the purpose of the educational nature of this activity. Speak to be heard and understood.
Organization: Be clear in your structure; show me how the arguments fit together and be sure that clash is occurring between your and your opponents arguments; roadmap your speeches and label your components,
Kritiks/Topicality: Im game as long as they make sense. Dont do it to do it. Do it because it makes sense.
IPDA: This event is meant to be distinct from Parliamentary Debate; I think about it as competing extemps; this means that style is an important component that must be utilized. You should also avoid highly technical language and treat me as a lay judge.
NPDA:You may use more technical language with me; however, this does not mean you may spread (see above).
Off-Time Roadmaps: I time roadmaps; they don't take a lot of time, so do them but include it in your time.
Partner Communication: Keep communication to a minimum while each partner debates; you may pass notes, but the person speaking is the person that needs to be the one making the arguments
If the tournament doesn't allow oral critiques I won't give them. Otherwise, I'm happy to give critiquesafterthe round is finished,aftermy ballot is turned in, and only if it doesn't impede with the tournament running on time. If you see me after the round, I'm happy to give you feedback then.
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Sheelah Bearfoot - Speech at Berkeley
n/a
Steve Storer - Hired
n/a
Steve Robertson - CCC
n/a
Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba College
n/a
Tim Heisler - LPC
I am an Individual Event judge and excel in coaching/judging platform speeches. I will evaluate an IPDA round as it compares to platform speeches. In my mind an IPDA debate is supposed to be clearly & easily understood by an audience unfamiliar with forensics competition. Therefore speakers who employ things like debate jargon & speed will dramatically suffer. Speak clearly, speak cleanly, speak articulately, be organized.
My ideal round looks like the following;
A. Please be kind to each other above all, I strongly dislike debaters who are rude to each other, I think it drives out young and talented people from our sport.
B. Avoid debate jargon. If your aunt, grandmother, boss or co-worker wouldn't understand what you're talking about, then you're not speaking the language of the common folk.
C. Debators are in charge of the debate. This includes keeping track of their own time, knowing the speaking order, and adhering to time limits.
D. When answering questions please be quick and concise. Long-winded answers that beat around the bush are really just tactical ways of milking the clock during Cross-X time. And we all know it, don't we?
Be nice. Be clear. Be fair. Have fun.