Christine Mellon -- Wilkes University

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:

The affirmative case carries the burden of proof as well as the arguments for topicality, significant harms, inherency and solvency. Negative responsibilities include, but are not limited to, proving the failures of the affirmative plan and eliminating the harms. The negative team can argue for the status quo, but you won't win unless the Aff has no advantages. On neg, I like to hear counterplans that prove a net benefit over the status quo. Disads are good, but need to be unique and link to the case, otherwise the arguments tend to cancel each other out. Speed is fine, but make sure you are all reading the evidence. Sometimes it doesn't say what your opponents are asserting. Ask me to look at cards at end of round, if you think there is an issue. I prefer philosophical world order K's and don't really want to judge a language K. Really, what's the point, imploding speech and starting over, that seems counter productive.

I like a more formal cross-x with debaters facing me. My hearing isn't great and I am interested in what is being said. I prefer you to stand and not talk from your seat and I don't like all debaters talking at once. Also, you all have to participate or it will hurt your speaker points.

I like consistent signposting and organization on the flow.

Seasonal voting record:

TourneyDivRdAFF    NEG    Decision
WestPtNov4MUOsmankovic29Peguero28CUNY Khan26Torres 27AFF
WestPtNov6CUNY Aslam28Avrakh29NewarkArgenal27Wang26AFF

Judge Philosophy Alternate Format: