Judge Philosophies
Adriena Young - APU
n/a
Ajmal Zanher - LAVC
n/a
Alixandria Lopez - ELAC
n/a
Alley Agee - Utah
<p>General overview: I consider myself a very open judge. I do not care what you run, as long as you do it well and justify it. I vote for the team that gives me the easiest out without or with minimal intervention. The only position I will not vote for out of principle is the argument that I personally have to affirm with my ballot that debate is meaningless. Arguments that ask me to personally affirm some philosophical position with my ballot also do not sit well with me. I think these types of positions do violence to the critic (or have no solvency, probably this one). So, keep my name or the phrase “the judge” out of your advocacy and solvency and you should be fine. Additionally, I usually prefer topical affs, though what counts as topical for me is pretty broad—make some link arguments or impacts specific to the resolution and you’re probably topical. This is because I think part of the unique education that you get from parli debate comes from changing topics. Even if you want to talk about your critical aff, considering the topic specific implications, link stories, or just general ways your critical position relates to the topic gives you a new way to think about that critical aff and probably does more for your education. This being said, I certainly have no problem voting up non-topical affs, and I’ve done it plenty of times. But I’m going to be swayed by theory with a good education voter a little more easily than other critics. Finally, the part that everyone says in every philosophy—be courteous, acknowledge your privilege or position of power and don’t exert it, respect your competitors and the arguments they make, and be respectful of me. If you don’t do these things I can assure you your speakers points will reflect it.</p> <p>If you want to know more specifics, you can keep reading.</p> <p>Experience: I competed in NPDA all four years of undergrad with appearances at two NPTE tournaments. This is my third year coaching college parli, and my second year at the University of Utah.</p> <p>Critical arguments and K’s: Run them. I love a good K debate. However, I do find them harder to judge if they get messy. This usually happens when the links are not clear, the team does not understand their lit, or the alt and alt solvency aren’t clearly explained. This becomes particularly problematic when both teams run critical positions. I will like you and your K more if you have topic specific links or implications. See my comment above about non-topical K affs. This season, I’m becoming increasingly more frustrated with sloppy alternatives that do not solve or make sufficient arguments about solvency, so you should take time on your alt and alt solvency in prep time. Framework/methodology always come first for me in K debates, whether its K on K or otherwise. Spend time telling me why your framework and methodology is best in comparison to the other team’s framework/methodologies. Additionally, don’t forget to deal with the links page.</p> <p> **This doesn’t mean that you have to run critical positions in front of me. I actually really dig a good straight up debate, increasingly more so because I rarely get to see them. I don’t think teams use the DA/CP strat as often as they should.**</p> <p> Theory/T: Also fine. I do not believe that in-round abuse has to have occurred to vote on T, mostly because I’m not really sure what in round abuse vs. potential abuse actually means (though you can certainly make arguments about that). I believe that T is a position just like any other position. If you win that sheet of paper and you tell me why that sheet of paper means you win the whole round, then I will vote for you. This goes for all theory positions. In general I think if you’re going to win T or any other theory position in front of me then you need to collapse down to just that position. If your theory position is really a priori, then you don’t need anything else to win the debate. Usually, I think you should only run theory to get you something in the round, i.e. to protect your links. (But just because they no link your DA doesn’t mean you automatically win T).</p> <p> Speaker points: I give speaker points ranging from 26-28 points. My average this semester has been around a 27.5. I determine speaker points based on the arguments you make and strategy. A killer MO collapse will get you a 29/30. An LOR that doesn’t stick with her MOs collapse will lose points. If you are mean or rude I have no problem giving you 0 points. Seriously, I’ve done more times than I can count.</p> <p> General Practice: Be smart and make good arguments. Tell me why you should win the debate. <strong>I like it when my RFD is literally a quotation from one of the rebuttals.</strong> I’ve bolded this because too often debaters forget to contextualize the round in the rebuttals for me. I think the constructive speeches are you just laying the groundwork for you to make your actual argument in the rebuttal. Clear voters are key. Finally, debates should start smaller than where they began. </p>
Allison Bowman - Moorpark
n/a
Amy Wangsadipura - Mt SAC
n/a
Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC
n/a
August Benassi - Moorpark
n/a
Barrett Tate - Mt SAC
n/a
Bobby Lebeda - CSUN
n/a
Brian Hy - CSULA
Brianna Broady - SMC
n/a
Brittany Brennecke - SFSU
n/a
Caleb Sutherlin - APU
n/a
Chelsea Daniel - APU
n/a
Chidi Agu - Mt SAC
n/a
Courtney Gammariello - Biola
Dakota Park-Ozee - Utah
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
n/a
David Kim - Mt SAC
n/a
Dion Skinner - LAVC
n/a
Hillary Phillips - Canyons
n/a
Holland Smith - CSULA
Jennifer McGee - Concordia
Joe Sindicich - CSUF
n/a
Joe Faina - LAVC
n/a
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
John Grimm - ASU
n/a
Kevin Briancesco - LAVC
n/a
Lindsey Ayotte - SFSU
Meg Barreras - EPCC
n/a
Megan Rogers - Moorpark
n/a
Michael Leach - Canyons
n/a
Michael Kalustian - LACC
n/a
Michelle Brownlee - CSUN
n/a
Rachel Ayotte - SFSU
n/a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
n/a
Sarah Crachiolo - LACC
n/a
Simon Kern - Canyons
n/a
Sowmya Murthy - Mt SAC
n/a
Wendeth Rauf - APU
n/a