FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Crawford - PCC

n/a

Adrian Garcia - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Alberto (Vince) Sampieri - Rio

Alex Patton - Biola

Alexander Trent - Glendale CC

Alixandria Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Alonzo Eldridge - CSUF

n/a

Alonzo Herrera - Cerritos College

Andrea Conte - SMC

n/a

Andrew Monaco - SMC

n/a

Aneesh Singh - LACC

n/a

Annaell Mouton - PCC

n/a

Anthony Gomez - Cerritos College

Aris Karakesisoglu - Long Beach

n/a

Asha Taylor - IVC

n/a

Bar Yakir - SMC

n/a

Ben Kolodny - SMC

n/a

Billy Santos - Cerritos College

Brianna Broady - SMC

n/a

Chole Wang - IVC

n/a

Cole McDaniel - Mesa

Colin Squyres - IVC

n/a

Corrine Schreck - Saddleback

n/a

Dallana Cerna - Cerritos College

Dan Brown - IVC

n/a

Daniel Arthur - OCC

Danny Mendez - Cerritos College

Dav Sonnenberg - OCC

David Hale - ELAC

n/a

Denise Ng - Cerritos College

Deondrick Fleming - Mesa

Dilan Wijesinghe - PCC

n/a

Duc Le - Mesa

Edward Minasyan - Rio

Elaine Metts - OCC

Eli Drummond - Saddleback

n/a

Emilia Allen - Cypress

n/a

Eric Chhour - Cypress

Erin Roberts - OCC

Gabriel Sanchez - Rio

George Diamentopoulos - IVC

n/a

Haley Jones - Santiago Canyon

n/a

Holland Smith - CSULA

J Uriel Montes - Mesa

Jack McMenamin - Saddleback

n/a

Jackson De Vight - Biola

James Shotwell - PCC

n/a

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. Coached debate as a graduate at CSULB. Am the debate coach at SCC. I am confident that I can follow your arguments as long as you are organized. Debate is not a numbers game to me, having less dropped arguments than your opponent does no mean you win.

Jasmine Zuniga - Cerritos College

Jesse Rodgers - PCC

n/a

Jessica Paek - Compton

n/a

Joe Sindicich - CSUF

n/a

Joel Reise - Saddleback

n/a

Jonathan Kaldas - Rio

Jordan Darling - Cypress

n/a

Katrya Ly - IVC

n/a

Keith Green - Biola

I strongly prefer K debate. Be warned: if you run a K with Marxism, Biopolitcs, Orientalism/ Po Co you will have to go deeper then a shell.    History: i have coached with Biola for two years, and I competed in Parli debate for two years with Biola University. I also did speech with them for one semester. I also competed for 4 years in STOA and NCFCA Voting: I vote on what you tell to me, provided you’ve put in the work on it. Eg, if you run a really horrid T, that is missing most of its parts, saying “a priori ” doesn’t mean you win.  On Procedurals: if you’ve lost ground, prove it to me. Otherwise, I default to competing interpretations. I will usually not vote on vagueness and unpopular procedurals except if they are really, really, necessary.    On K’s: I LOVE K’s. PLEASE RUN EXPERIMENTAL K’S IF YOU HAVE THEM. The way to make me happy is to have a unique K, with a CITED LIT BASE, a INTERESTING ALT and run by teams who understand the K they are running.      On Alts: I understand that reject alts are really common and do fit the average criticism, BUT if you run an alt that is more than just reject, it greatly increases your chances of me picking you up. (provided you can defend it)hint: non-violence can be very effective. I like project K’s, I really dislike.  THEORY and LIT bases: I have read extensively from Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Saide, West, Saussure, Derrida, Althusser, Marx, bell hooks, Nietzsche, Barthes, Bhabha, Beauvoir, Edelman, Segwick, Wilderson, Sexton,  Baudrillard, Jameson, Zizek Fannon, Fiere, Chomsky and Bell, and Ghandi.    I am familiar/have read the following schools of theory: Femm, Queer, Po-Co, Marxist, Critical Race Theory, anti-blackness and afro-pessimisnm, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, reader response, intersectionality, and Eco-Fem. I do not like Deep Eco, and I do not enjoy psychoanalytic. I DO NOT LIKE ANTHRO K’s. Other kinds of lit bases I am not as well versed in which means you may have to a run a specific thesis block. I enjoy personal narratives as advocacy provided you make it clear how to weigh them IN ROUND. Same goes with performance debate.    On Speed: gotta go fast! I can follow nearly all CLEAR speed. If you mumble I will not flow it.  On Trichot: I will never vote for you on a fact res. The first person to say the word fact loses. Period. Same for value. Just run policy or I will be mad. Impacts: I like them to be clear, well warranted and realistic. Running nuclear war as an impact is bad, and any good team can beat that. I will vote on critical impacts if you actually terminalize them. Saying their imperialist is not an impact. You need to explain to me the pre/post fiat impacts.  I love GOOD WARRANTED impact scenarios. Just saying “econ improves therefor JOBS” is a good way to lose. Do impact calculus EVEN FOR YOUR CRITICAL IMPACTS. Warrants: have them for important aspects of your advocacy. Preferably for everything. Calling out NO WARRANT is not an argument, it is at the very least, poor defense.. Points of Order: you should call them. I will try to protect as much as I can, for new arguments, but I will miss some. Don’t abuse POO though. CP: I agree with Sean Hansen: “I think PICs are a good strategy decision, while delays and 50 states tend to be lazy strategies unless specifically justified. I think topical CPs are not only theoretically legitimate, but also probably the only way to allow NEG reciprocal access to the round (though I’ve picked up AFFs who have argued otherwise). I am also open to conditional CPs, and even multiple conditional positions, but allow AFF theory responses equal weight. My openness to CPs generates a corresponding openness to good perm debates, although I tend towards the perspective that legitimate perms use all of AFF text and some or all of CP text (unless severance is somehow justified, which can certainly be done, but is a hard theory battle to win). Perms should have a net benefit, and should usually be run with solvency deficits / turns to the alt.” Speech: I start at 30spks, and go down. If you get lower than 26 you pissed me off. Interpreting my non- verbal’s : 1. If I knock that I means I like your argument. 2. If I laugh, that’s means something funny has occurred. If you can’t figure out what it is, its probably you. 3. If I stop flowing, that’s bad. Give me things to flow. 4. If I stare at your team during rebuttals I’m listening to a new argument, and wondering if you are going to call it. 5. If I shrug that means I’m not impressed but I can buy it. 6. Nodding quickly means I agree with what you are sating. Speaking of things that piss me off: 1. Any kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, transist, bi, ablest, imperialist, classist, ethnocentrism, exceptioanlism, patriarchal, and jingoist statements as well as generally being unaware of one’s privilege will KILL your speaker points, and may cost you the round. 2. Repeating arguments. 3. Interrupting speeches. 4. Not taking ANY questions. (taking at least one won’t hurt you) 5. Lying about what the other team has or has not done. 6. Being rude. (don’t tell me their DA is crap, I’ll know) 7. Looking at your competition, unless it’s a diag/expo round.

Kevork Abechian - Rio

Kiefer Storrer - Glendale CC

4 years Policy (HS) 4 years Parli (College) In my fourth year of coaching, familiar with LD, Public Forum, Worlds, etc, and high flow Parli. I love, love, love, pragmatic, policy discussion, but I also don't want to disenfranchise voices, so K's, Projects, other experimental positions are fine by me. I appreciate in round, articulated abuse for procedural arguments. For Ks/Projects, I'd like debate community implications but also recognize policy ontological impacts because of our epistemological views. Overall, SUPER open to answering questions pre-round, and discussing rounds in depth post round, via social media, etc.

Lane Schwager - CSULA

n/a

Lasai Willett - CSUF

n/a

Lauren Cocroft - OCC

Liza Rios - Compton

Hello! Welcome to my Debate Gospel!  <ol> <li>I am Communication judge so it should come as no surprise that I value time honored traditions such as eloquence and charisma when speaking in public.</li> <li>You will lose my ballot if you spread.</li> <li>I do not time road maps.</li> <li>Tag-line and sign post the heck out of your speeches!  I love structure! This will make it a pleasure for me to flow your arguments.</li> <li>I will vote on procedurals if you can convince me that your claims are legitimate.</li> <li>Impacts are weighted heavily on my ballot.</li> <li>Regarding partner communication: do not upstage your partner while he/she is presenting his/her speech. A few interjections are fine but overall I should be hearing mostly from the main speaker. Write notes if need be.  If you keep speaking for your partner, this communicates to me that you do not trust your partner…so why should I trust your partner? Manage your ethos! When your opponents are speaking, quietly communicate with your partner or write notes to each as to not draw attention to your side.</li> <li>Be respectful and classy! That makes me happy! :)</li> <li>Do not drop arguments.</li> <li>I will not debate for you. If, for example, new arguments are brought up in rebuttal speeches, it is not my job to make note of this.</li> <li>I value truth in what is spoken in a debate.</li> </ol> Looking forward to seeing you in elimination rounds!! Liza A. Rios

Luis Andrade - SMC

Mariana Sanchez - Mesa

Mario Sutka - Mesa

Mary Barreras - Glendale CC

Mason Jones - Compton

n/a

Matthew Linsky - SMC

n/a

McKenna Patton - Biola

McKenna Patton Judging Philosophy: Hi there! I will judge the round by the arguments I see on the flow.  I will not intervene (to the best of my ability) and find myself typically voting for the team with the best link story and termanilized impacts.  By the end of the round it is incredibly important to make clear how you think things should be weighed and why I should agree with you. Specifically with regard to procedurals… I have a high threshold for theory; In fact I rather enjoy it. However, please make sure you have and Interp, violation, standards, and reasons I should be voting for you. Please be sure you repeat your interpretations if you want me to write them down verbatim. Proven abuse is not necessary for T, though it helps. If you win on interp, vio, and your standards outweigh I will likely vote for you. With regard to K’s I’ve seen and run my fair share and consider myself comfortable with the literature of the more popular ones in the circuit. I enjoy K debates however try to keep it clean (K debates often get messy) and be explicit about where on the flow you are responding to things. I prefer depth of arguments rather than the speed. I will “clear” you if I need to but try not to lose me. Please don’t be racist, sexist, ableist ,homophobic,transphobic ect or you will see your speaker points plummet. I do enjoy humor and sass, however don’t use as an excuse to be a jerk to your opponents.

Meaghan Loeffler - IVC

n/a

Melissa De Leon - Rio

Michael Williams - PCC

n/a

Mike Davis - OCC

Mindy Moldoveanu - Compton

n/a

Nilam Faqhir - IVC

n/a

Patricia Hughes - Rio

I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate. I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.             When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters. I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.              I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.             I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments. While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Rachel Steele - OCC

Rebecca Patton - Biola

Rebecca Whitehead - OCC

Renee Orton - MSJC

n/a

Ricardo Venegas - Cerritos College

Rishi Malhotra - IVC

n/a

Robert Andrews - Mesa

Rohan Shah - Fullerton Col

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

2017 PSCFA Cool-Off