Judge Philosophies
AJ Moorhead - Mt SAC
n/a
Adriena Young - APU
n/a
Allison Bowman - Moorpark
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - Concordia
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Dav Sonnenberg - Mt SAC
n/a
Erin Roberts - Mt SAC
n/a
Fernanda De La O - APU
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>
Hannah Haghighat - OCC
Heather Kelley - Cerritos College
Hillary Phillips - Canyons
n/a
Jamie Whittington-Studer - Moorpark
n/a
Jared Morrison - Mt SAC
n/a
Jessica Beard - APU
n/a
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Katie DelBagno - Moorpark
n/a
Katie Callaway - Mt SAC
n/a
Michael Moran - Rio
Nana Bekoe-Sakyi - APU
n/a
Nick Matthews - Cerritos College
<p>Hello! I am a full-time coach at Cerritos College. I debated in both high school and college for eight years, and I have been coaching at the college level for the past five years. Here are a few important things to know when I am judging you:</p> <p>1) I am partly deaf and wear hearing aids, so I will probably sit towards the front of the room. Please speak up a bit and speak at a conversational pace of speed. Otherwise, I may not be able to flow all of your arguments.</p> <p>2) I am fine with all types of arguments—DAs, CPs, Ks, procedurals, etc.—as long as they are well-executed and well-explained. The caveat: if your argument is particularly novel or if I have never heard it before, I will be less confident in my understanding and evaluation of it. This goes for both kritiks and obscure politics disads. "You haven't explained _______ well enough" is a line that frequently appears in my RFDs. </p> <p>3) I like to read about what's happening in the world. Since knowledge is subjective, I try to minimize the influence of my reading on my evaluation of your arguments, but I definitely have a bias against arguments which rely on faulty factual premises.</p> <p>4) An argument consists of three parts: a claim, support, and an implication. The last of these is very important. Why does your argument matter? What is the impact? How does it relate to other arguments? How should it influence my evaluation of the debate? Debaters who directly answer these questions are far more likely to win. Don't leave them up to me to resolve. </p> <p>5) Similarly, you should focus on comparative evaluations of arguments in your rebuttals. It is insufficient to win that an argument is valid; you also have to prove that it is preferable in some way to what your opponent argued. Focus on argumentative depth over breadth. Narrowing the debate down to a few key issues and kicking out of less important arguments is always a smart play.</p> <p>6) I am nonverbally expressive as a judge, so pay attention to me. If you see me nodding, you're probably saying something smart and you should emphasize it. If I look skeptical about your argument, I probably am. Use this information appropriately. </p> <p>If you have more specific questions, I am always happy to answer them before the round. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!</p>
Patricia Hughes - Rio
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p> 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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p> 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.</p> <p> I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments.</p> <p>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.</p>
Paxton Attridge - CSULA
n/a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
n/a
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>
Twee Pham - OCC
Yaw Kyeremateng - Concordia
Zack Segretto - Canyons
n/a