Judge Philosophies
Amanda Afentakis - Grossmont
n/a
Ayden Loeffler - IVC
Brandan Whearty - Palomar
Bryan Malinis - Mesa
<p><strong>Content:</strong> I am a stock issues judge. I will vote on presumption if the government team fails to provide a substantial on-case that meets their burden of proof. I am looking for the team that provides the strongest arguments based on common knowledge; evidence-based arguments are welcomed, but not required. Be sure to stay organized! You must label all your arguments with taglines and signposts in order for me to flow the debate effectively. I have dropped teams in the past due to their lack of a CLEAR structure. Do not simply tell me that legalizing marijuana leads to dying children. Provide claims, data, links, internal links, and impacts. I will not make the argument for you in my head--you must tell me what to think! I only flow what is explicitly stated in the round. In parliamentary debate, I expect you to articulate abuse and points of order. In IPDA, treat me as a layjudge; I know nothing.</p> <p><strong>Topicality:</strong> I welcome topicality arguments as long as they are well-justified by the opposition. Topicality arguments must be perfectly structured. You must cover all your bases with the topicality. This is an a priori voting issue for me, but only if presented correctly! I will vote on a suicide T, especially if the procedural was absolutely necessary and correctly presented. .</p> <p><strong>Kritiks:</strong> I am not a fan of these, so proceed with caution. I will not immediately drop you for using a K, but these arguments must be justified and clearly articulated. Use common sense here.</p> <p><strong>Delivery:</strong> Your delivery skills are unequivocally tied to my perception of your credibility and competence as a speaker. I pay close attention to your speech rate (breathe like a human), volume, pitch, gestures, posture, eye contact, etc. Since nonverbal communication comprises up to 90% of what we communicate, you must be mindful of all the aforementioned elements during your speaking time. I am fine with partner-to-partner communication; however, I will only flow what the present speaker says. Please keep audible P2P communication to a minimum while an opponent is speaking: excessive talking hinders my ability to truly focus on the present speaker.</p> <p><strong>Expectation of Decorum:</strong> Debaters are expected to perform with professionalism and respect. I do not condone distasteful or disparaging remarks made against opponents, nor insulting nonverbal behavior. Such behavior tarnishes your own credibility as a persuasive speaker. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Excessive insults will result in me dropping your team. Above all, make me happy to be in your presence. Have a good time and I will, too.</p>
Caleb Christiansen - Mesa
n/a
Carlos B. Pelayo - IVC
n/a
Dana-Jean Smith - Saddleback
n/a
Daniel Zaragoza - Grossmont
n/a
Daniel Noriega - CSULA
n/a
Dewi Hokett - Palomar
Finn Torres - Mesa
n/a
George Diamentopoulos - IVC
n/a
German Monroy - MSJC
n/a
Ialaina Burgos - Cypress
n/a
Jamari Flowers - Mesa
n/a
Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon
n/a
Jaylon Kirk - Canyons
n/a
Jescel Leeh Ocampo - Mesa
n/a
Jess Riestra - OCC
n/a
John Cho - IVC
n/a
Jonah Naoum - Grossmont
n/a
Joseph Hana - Saddleback
n/a
Josh Slama - MSJC
n/a
Josh House - Cypress
<p>Background: I competed in NPDA/NPTE debate at the University of Wyoming from 2000-2004. After that, I coached Parliamentary debate at Purdue University, CSULB, and then Pepperdine University for the next 7 years. From 2012-2015 I was the DoF at Central Wyoming College and I came to Cypress College as the DoF this year. Over the past 4 years as a DoF I've run programs that offer many other events in addition to Parli and I haven't really traveled the nationally competitive Parli circuit in that time so much as I've gone to local, full-service tournaments.</p> <p>I honestly don't know how I think NPDA should look right now. I am willing to hear anything I guess, but I'm increasingly convinced of a couple of things:</p> <p>1. Traditional policy-style Parli seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I love CP-DA debates, and I've fallen behind on the K/methods/etc debate in the past few years so I feel less confident evaluating those debates just because of my relative lack of experience. I feel much more comfortable judging a CP-DA debate on the topic, but that comfort simply is not the most important consideration right now.</p> <p>2. We need really clear and accessible strategies to function as a meaningful, effective force for positive change in the world right now. I want to understand your position even though I haven't heard the argument before, and I want to know exactly how what you do or what I do benefits the world right now. I think in the past this kind of perspective has been used to dismiss K teams, but...</p> <p>TLDR: I want to be clear that I'm basically saying here that I'm fairly* certain I'd like to see critical debate from both sides, and I would hope you are willing to meet me at my level of understanding (I mean, look, if I'm on a panel and you punt me I won't be offended) and that you can explain your position in a way that I can teach to my non-forensics students and the friends and family I have across the country in various rural and urban areas. </p> <p>*I am willing to be talked out of this, which is why I use the qualifier fairly. </p> <p> </p>
Justin Perkins - Cypress
n/a
Katrina Taylor - LASC
n/a
Katrya Ly - IVC
n/a
Kattie Carroll - Saddleback
n/a
Katya Azzam - Mesa
n/a
Marquesa Whearty - Palomar
Mason Knittle - Saddleback
n/a
Matt Grisat - CBU
n/a
Michael Marse - CBU
<p>I am a traditional debate theorist. I have coached and competed in Parli, NFA L/D, and CEDA for more than fifteen years. I have been a DoF and taught Argumentation full time for 10 years.</p> <p>What I do not like:</p> <p>Kritiks - I have never voted for a K, because nearly every one I have ever heard is a non-unique DA dressed up in the shabby clothes of an intellectual argument. </p> <p>Topical Counterplans - I have a resolutional focus, not a plan focus. If the neg. goes for a topical counterplan, I vote in affirmation of the resolution regardless of who "wins" the debate.</p> <p>Speed - Going faster than quick conversational rate robs the activity of many of its educational outcomes, though not all. It is good for winning in some instances, bad for education in many others. Therefore I will allow you to go as fast as you would like, but I will vote quickly on any claim of abuse on speed. Asking a question in the round like, "Do you mind speed?" in such a way as to really ask, "Are you going to be a stupid judge?" is going to annoy me. The emperor has no clothes, many debaters are afraid to say anything for fear of looking stupid in rounds. Same goes for most judges who are proud of their ability to flow quickly. The best you can do if you spread in a round is to win with very low points.</p> <p>What I do like:</p> <p>Topicality Arguments - The deeper into linguistic philosophy, the better. Have bright lines, don't kick-out of T without demonstrating how they have truly clarified their position since the 1st Aff. speech. Otherwise, it is a timesuck and I will vote on abuse in those instances. My opinion on T comes from my resolutional focus. I don't believe it is good debate theory to argue that the affirmative plan replaces the resolution, since that would lead to more pre-written cases and a devaluing of the breadth of knowledge required to be an excellent citizen after graduation.</p> <p>Negative going for a win on stock issues - If it's a policy round and the negative wins (not mitigates, but wins outright) any stock issue, they win.</p> <p>Collegiality - I believe in debate as a tool of clarity and invitational rhetoric. If you are mean, or deliberately use a strategy to confuse, you will lose. Common examples are affirmatives not taking any questions to clarify on plan text in Parli, using unnecessarily academic terms without given adequate synonyms, etc. If you win on the flow, but demonstrate unethical practices, you lose in life and on my ballot.</p> <p>To conclude:</p> <p>The proper metaphor for debate is not "a game", but is instead "a laboratory". The laboratory is looking to achieve truth, and have proven methods for getting there. We should be experimenting, and in some cases pushing boundaries. We must also be able to deal with the failures that sometime come with those experiments. The point of debate is not to win rounds, but to produce good people who know how to think and speak effectively after they graduate.</p> <p>Please feel free to ask and question to clarify these statement, or anything I might have missed.</p>
Mike Davis - OCC
Nicholas Thomas - Palomar
Pierce Monahan - Canyons
n/a
Rachel Lobo - Compton
n/a
Ralph Castellanos - Santiago Canyon
n/a
Rayna Kerr - IVC
n/a
Regina Forester - Grossmont
n/a
Rita Rafael - Santiago Canyon
Ryan Galor - Glendale CC
n/a
Saed Hussien - Cypress
Sam Jones - PLNU
n/a
Shawn White - Glendale CC
n/a
Stevie Vu - OCC
Tanya Washington - Cypress
n/a
Theo Hayes - Grossmont
n/a
Tom Proprofsky - Compton
n/a
Victoria Marshall - Compton
n/a
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>