Judge Philosophies
Aditya Sharma - IVC
Al Primack - CMC
n/a
Alex Martinez - IVC
Ali Aldhalimi - Grossmont
Alonna Wilson - Cerritos College
n/a
Analicia Avila - Cerritos College
n/a
Andrew Puente-Castellanos - Cerritos College
n/a
Andrew Johnson - Saddleback
Ashley Givens - Glendale, CA
n/a
Ben Bates - LA City
n/a
Brandon Delavar - Mesa
Breanne Gannaway - Palomar
Brigitte Miller - Mesa
Brittany Stockham - Palomar
Brittany Jarrett - Saddleback
Brooke Howell - Saddleback
CYNDY GARCIA - ELAC
n/a
Carolina Beyer-Flores - Saddleback
Chathi Anderson - IVC
<p> </p> <p>Chathi Anderson: Judging Philosophies</p> <p> </p> <p>2 years experience as a platform speaker/competitor and 1 year experience as a debater/competitor.</p> <p> </p> <p>I appreciate clear arguments delivered in a respectful manner, and I pay close to attention to non-verbals during a round. Make sure to warrant all your claims and tell me why your side should win—I will not debate the round for you. If an argument is dropped, make sure to point it out. I will entertain any type of case you want to run, just make sure to clearly argue it and back it up. Above all, play nicely with each other and enjoy the debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>FYI: I started debating last year and competed in NPDA for over a dozen tournaments. I will only be judging novice competition, so I hope that you will try your best to keep the debate organized. Stick to the basics and you should be fine. Do not try to run any theories you do not understand.</p> <p> </p> <p>I will award the win to the team who can get the most significant arguments on my flow sheet. I will award points based on how well you deliver, organize and operationalize your critical thinking. Rudeness will get points subtracted.</p>
Chris Danks - IVC
Christian Sanchez-Bartz - Rio
Christopher Sotier - Cypress
Daniel Won - Cypress
Danny McAndrews - Saddleback
Darron DeVillez - Grossmont
David Finnigan - CLU
<p>I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 2 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.<br /> <br /> Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.<br /> <br /> Counterplans should be well thought out – and original.<br /> <br /> Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.<br /> <br /> Critically framed arguments: I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.<br /> </p> <p>Topicality is good and it is an important aspect of the debate. Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.<br /> </p> <p>Above all, have fun.</p> <p>Speaker points: you should work hard to earn your points through civility and solid speaking.</p> <p>Performance based arguments: Keep the thinking linear.</p>
David Evanoski - CSUF
n/a
Derek Demerjian - Saddleback
Donis Leonard - CSUDH
n/a
Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col
Dylan Lappin - Saddleback
Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress
Erika Johnson - Saddleback
Haley Strickland - OCC
Hannah Perez - Rio
Jackson Lee Spencer - Saddleback
Jacqueline Denapoli - IVC
Jake Weber - Grossmont
n/a
Jake Glendenning - IVC
Jeanne Dunphy - LA City
n/a
Jenice Martinez - Rio
Jetta Khan - LA City
n/a
John Kelly - Chapman
n/a
Jordan Kay - Saddleback
Jose Caballero - Mesa
Karina Gutierrez - Glendale, CA
n/a
Katie Berry - Saddleback
MIGUEL DELGADO - ELAC
n/a
Mac Walker - Cypress
n/a
Madison Dixson - Saddleback
Marc Eddy - Palomar
Maria Zakhar - Saddleback
Matt Hinkle - IVC
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>I am a traditional debate theorist. I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years. I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument. </p> <p>Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus. If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate.</p> <p>Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all. It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others. Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed. Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me. The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds. Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly. The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better. Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech. Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances. My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus. I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation.</p> <p>Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win.</p> <p>Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric. If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose. Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc. If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory". The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there. We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries. We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments. The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Mikayla Mays - Saddleback
NICK McKnight - ELAC
n/a
Olivia Noceda - Saddleback
Patricia Realini - OCC
RAPHAEL AVINA - ELAC
n/a
Raquelle Ross - Glendale, CA
n/a
Ray Sanchez - Rio
Rebecca Barcelo - LSU
n/a
Rene Ucros - OCC
Richard Wickham - CBU
Robert Seany - IVC
Robert Mayer - Saddleback
Ryan Morris - Palomar
Saxon Metzger - Palomar
Shawn Plascencia - Rio
Stefany Roberts - Saddleback
Stephen Thomas - CBU
Tim Seavey - Chapman
n/a