Judge Philosophies
AJ Curry - Moorpark
n/a
Abigail Watkins - El Camino
<p>Experience: I competed for two years at El Camino College, where I competed at both community college circuit tournaments as well as NPDA/NPTE, and I have been coaching at El Camino for two years.</p> <p>IMPORTANT: If you only take one thing away from my judging philosophy, remember this: please do not read arguments about animal abuse/violence against animals/animal death in front of me. You are one hundred percent guaranteed to give me a panic attack. This is an unfortunate reality of my mental health and something I would happily change if I could. If you are wondering whether or not an argument might delve into this territory, I beg you to exercise caution!</p> <p>Otherwise:</p> <p>SPEED: I am somewhat out of practice flowing absolute top speed so if you’re super fast you might want to slow down a bit for me, but overall I should be fine flowing most people’s spread, especially on a laptop. I have terrible listening comprehension so if your spread isn’t super clear, you definitely want to slow down just to make sure that I understand you.</p> <p>FRAMEWORK: I will default to a net benefits paradigm unless otherwise instructed. I tend to respond best to framework arguments with clear real world warrants to back up your claims.</p> <p>THEORY: I love theory. I default to competing interpretations unless otherwise instructed. Please don’t read RVIs in front of me unless the round has entered some weird parallel universe and you really, REALLY think that they’re justified.</p> <p>KRITIKS: I like the kritik and I think it can be a valuable tool in the debate. You should probably assume that I don’t know anything about the literature. If all things are equal and you’re wondering whether or not to go for a DA/CP round or a K round, you might be better off going for a more “straight up” style in front of me, but I am not predisposed against the K in the slightest.</p> <p>IDENTITY ARGS: I might not be your best judge for this; I feel like they are asking me to insert myself into the round as a judge in a way that I don’t always feel comfortable doing. But if this is your strategy in competition, I will do my best to judge these arguments as I would any other. I have certainly voted for them in the past.</p> <p>CONDITIONALITY: I default to unconditionality unless otherwise instructed and I tend to be receptive to arguments that unconditionality is a superior paradigm, but ultimately...I don’t care that much.</p> <p>MISC: Economics make little to no sense to me so if it’s going to be an econ round...read Marx or be very clear in defining your terms, and don't rely on me to gutcheck your opponents because it's just not going to happen. I have horrible nonverbals, and I am sorry about that. It’s just how my face is. I understand that when you’re going fast, it’s easy for your volume level to pick up as well, but I am very noise sensitive so if you can try your best not to yell at me I will appreciate it. Have fun? Have fun.</p>
Adam Rayzor - Bradley
n/a
Alexis Martinez - EPCC
n/a
Allison Bowman - LAVC
n/a
Andrea Berning - Glendale CC
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Anna Moskovyan - Rio
Annie Moskovyan - Rio
Brandon Fletcher - El Camino
Brittany Hubble - El Camino
<p><strong>BG:</strong></p> <p>I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and have been judging and coaching ever since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round.</p> <p><strong>Impacts:</strong></p> <p>You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate.</p> <p><strong>Case Debate:</strong></p> <p>I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well.</p> <p><strong>Diadvantages:</strong></p> <p>Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability.</p> <p><strong>Counterplans:</strong></p> <p>Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea.</p> <p><strong>Conditionality:</strong></p> <p>I have recently changed my perspecive on conditionality. I am fine with multiple conditional advocacies but I HATE multiple blippy arguments that become something completely different in the block. The same can be true for any argument and not just an advocacy. That said, I will also vote on condo bad. </p> <p><strong>Kritiks:</strong></p> <p>I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should.</p> <p><strong>Identity Arguments:</strong></p> <p>With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual.</p> <p><strong>Theory:</strong></p> <p>I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win.</p> <p><strong>Speed:</strong></p> <p>Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments.</p> <p><strong>Speaker Points:</strong></p> <p>If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds.</p> <p><strong>Miscellaneous:</strong></p> <p>Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. </p>
CLS Ferguson - Mt SAC
Courtney Anderson - OCC
David Finnegan - IVC
n/a
Eric Yahn - Glendale CC
<p> </p> <p>~• Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of<br /> coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)</p> <p>2 years of collegiate parliamentary debate experience</p> <p>3 years of collegiate forensics experience</p> <p>3 years of collegiate forensics coaching experience </p> <p><br /> • Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stockissues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)</p> <p>I am a tabula rasa judge. I will vote where you tell me to, as long as it is well articulated and warranted. I'm open to trichotomy and topicality arguments, they serve a purpose so use them if you have to.</p> <p><strong>I am not a fan of Kritiks</strong>, and here's why, I've found that most people don't use them properly. If they are poorly drawn and out of context then I cannot vote on them, theory arguments are impressive yes, but if you don't understand the words coming out of your mouth then your opponant wont either and if I have to piece together a theory for you then you've already lost. Don't try it if you can't handle it, it's better to debate at face value than over extend your reach. </p> <p><br /> • Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making</p> <p>I am a champion of decorum. I like thank yous and human decency. Be nice to one another and we'll get along fine. I want clean well articulated arguments, as such I tend to favor Toulmens model of argumentation. i.e. This happens because of that for these reasons. Sign post everything always, tell me where you are on the flow, what arguments you are responding to, what your response is and why your response is better. Time that I have to spend flipping through pages is time that I am not flowing you. </p> <p><br /> • Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making</p> <p>Both on and off case argumentation are key to winning my ballot. I will vote on dropped arguments if you tell me to, but I will not do any leg work for you. If you don't say it, I can't flow it. </p> <p> I will not flow speed, if its too fast and I miss it, thats your fault. Note: I can't flow policy speakers and the "double pump" is one of the most irritating noises ever. I will clear you if I have to but I will take it out of your speaker points. Brownie points* for making me laugh though. </p> <p>• Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and Kritiks</p> <p>I am not opposed to a topicality argument but it needs to be properly structured. Counter plans are fine, but should also be clearly structured. I do not like Kritiks.</p> <p><br /> • Preferences on calling Points of Order</p> <p>Points of order should be used to call out new argumentation in rebuttals, if you don't tell me they're new arguments, they're on my flow to be calculated when voting. Points of order will be ruled on if possible, in rounds with a panel of judges, they'll be taken into consideration. </p> <p>IPDA</p> <p>I view IPDA as a cross between dueling extemps and persuasion. Tell me your story, give me your facts, and defend your findings. <br /> <br /> NFA-LA </p> <p>I never competed in LD, however I have the base knowledge to coach and judge the event. I will flow what you tell me but I will call for cards if thats where you and the opposition draw the lines. Keep it neat, keep it clean, be persuasive.</p> <p> </p> <p>*Brownie points are not redeemable for credit, speaker points or actual brownies. </p>
Eric Garcia - IVC
Felicia Coco - OCC
Felix Rodriguez - Rio
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>
Harrison Shieh - El Camino
Herzon Alfaro - Rio
Jacee Cantler - IVC
Jazmin Hand - APU
n/a
Jimmy Gomez - LAVC
n/a
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
Jonathan veale - IVC
n/a
Justin Restaino - Bradley
n/a
Justin Kemp - APU
n/a
Justin Perkins - Mt SAC
Kelly Kehoe - IVC
Kevin Briancesco - LAVC
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - IVC
Lewis Robinson - Glendale CC
Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback
Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback
Marilyn Vasquez - Rio
Mark Crossman - El Camino
Marty Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC
Matthew Grisat - Rio
Matthew Brandstetter - APU
n/a
Michael Leach - Canyons
n/a
Nabeel Faisal - IVC
Naseem Akramian - Mt SAC
Neal Stewart - Moorpark
n/a
Neshan Kahkejian - APU
n/a
Nichole Barta - IVC
Rich Ferguson - Mt SAC
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
n/a
Ruth Hernandez - Rio
Sean Connor - OCC
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>
Simon Kern - Canyons
n/a
Swaim Guetling - Mt SAC
Tanya Melendez - Bradley
n/a
Virginia Gummig - Rio
William Neesen - IVC
<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3> <p> </p> <p>Bill Neesen<br /> Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College<br /> <br /> Parli Debates judged this year: 40+<br /> Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+<br /> Years Judging Debate: 15<br /> Years Competed in Debate: 7<br /> What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton<br /> <br /> Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.'<br /> <br /> Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. '<br /> <br /> Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.'<br /> <br /> Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.'<br /> <br /> Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.'<br /> <br /> Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.'<br /> <br /> Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '</p> <p> </p> <p><br /> </p>