Judge Philosophies
AJ Moorhead - Mt SAC
n/a
Allison Bowman - Moorpark
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
April Griffin - Cerritos College
Ashley Graham - Cerritos College
Blake Longfellow - DVC
n/a
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
n/a
David Hale - ELAC
n/a
Dawne McClure - Saddleback
n/a
Grant Tovmasian - Rio
<p>The most important criteria for me is impartiality. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point. Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon) I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position. DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them. I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation. If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD. I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)</p>
Hillary Phillips - Canyons
n/a
Isaac Lyles - APU
n/a
Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark
n/a
Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC
n/a
Jedi Curva - ELAC
n/a
Jessica Beard - APU
n/a
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Joey JoJo Faina - LAVC
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Katie DelBagno - Moorpark
n/a
Kevin Briancesco - LAVC
n/a
Maia Gaboian - LAVC
n/a
Malcolm Gamble - CSUF
n/a
Martin Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC
n/a
Michael Moran - Rio
Paxton Attridge - CSULA
n/a
Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC
n/a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
n/a
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
<p>I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I'm very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I'm also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you're being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent's voters. I personally hate spreading, so I'm very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it's still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why.</p> <p>Don't be mean and let's make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.</p>
Sherana Polk - OCC
<p>First, I like arguments that just make logical sense. Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic. However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions. Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it. I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response. </p> <p>Second, delivery is important. The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable. If you are spreading then you are less understandable. If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you. Please be organized and signpost where you are at. If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you.</p> <p>Third, I think that there are three types of debate. So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate. Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me. So run the proper case for the proper resolution. If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there. I also think that Gov should always stay on topic. So if Gov is non-topical then run T. I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue. If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose. So just argue the topic. I am willing to listen to Kritiques. I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue. However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary. So run it at your own risk. </p> <p>Overall, I really like debate. If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge. So do your best!</p>
Yaw Kyeremateng - Concordia
Zack Segretto - Canyons
n/a