FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abigail Lee - Northwood HS

n/a

Ah-Hyung Hahm - Northwood HS

n/a

Alisa Currier - Claremont

Amy Han - Oxford

n/a

Andrew Jenkins - Oxford

n/a

Andrew Nam - Claremont

Andy Bradvica - Helix Charter

n/a

Angela Fuller - Yucaipa

n/a

Ann Gardner - BHS

n/a

Ann Boyse - Yucaipa

n/a

Anu Seth - Northwood HS

n/a

Arti Ghai - Northwood HS

n/a

Aurik Sarker - Oxford

n/a

Bill Smelko - LCC

n/a

Brian Sapraimuk - La Quinta

n/a

Britney Spell - Claremont

Cameron Harris - Damien

n/a

Charles Painter - Yucaipa

n/a

Cherie Smith - CVHS

Chris Estrada - BHS

n/a

Chris Villanueva - University

n/a

Christopher Brito - Oxford

n/a

Daina Burness - BHS

n/a

Daniel Perdomo - DRHS

Diamond Ranch HS '08 Cal State Fullerton `14 and counting... <a name="I like good K debates*. I like good performance debates. I don't like the 'heg good' debate. I don't like procedural debates."></a> I like good K debates*. I like good performance debates. I don't like the 'heg good' debate. I don't like procedural debates. I debated all 4 years in high school (straight-up, poorly), and in open for a year at Cal State Fullerton (critical, also poorly). I've been judging and coaching in Southern California for 6 years, mostly regionals, but also usually USC, Cal, Stanford, La Costa, and Golden Desert. I don't dig heg, capitalism, or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I voted for critiques maybe four times on the entire transportation topic. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates. I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless you crush it, it's dropped, or you prove blatant in-round abuse). I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or links pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple worlds in the 2NR. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, I probably voted neg on T more than anything else on the transportation topic. One nuanced, contextual, well-explained perm is better than 4 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the world of the perm vs. the world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I want one world in the 2NR. There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 20 from me. Notes for Latin America topic: I am not the biggest fan of free trade or globalization. I rocked the neoliberalism debate back in the day, and tend to find arguments about exploitation of developing nations and indigenous peoples pretty persuasive. Don't know how relevant this is but I come from a Cuban family, most of whom came to the US as refugees after the revolution. This is a topic area that I have some knowledge about and it will behoove you not to essentialize too much about the plight of the poor Cubans suffering under failed Socialism. <img alt="external image viewphotothumbnail.jpg" src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a166/ChemicalDan/viewphotothumbnail.jpg" /> *So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Å½iÅ¾ek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you "occupy debate" at 300 words-per-minute as one of 3 possible 2NRs. The best K debates are aff-specific and nuanced, extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I hate hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes reform can create material gains for oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think we could really probably use a revolution. I subscribe to the belief that no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/physical location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts in-and-of-themselves are only valuable insofar as they can inform debate practices which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

Daniel Ho - University

n/a

Danielle Rascon - DRHS

Darrin Navarro - BHS

n/a

David Chamberlain - Claremont

David Goedinghaus - Oxford

n/a

David Wixtrom - Kennedy

n/a

David Lee - Troy

n/a

Dayoon Kang - Northwood HS

n/a

Don Lundy - Oxford

n/a

Einar Johnson - West

n/a

Elizabeth Yang - Oxford

n/a

Erik Pielstick - Los Osos

n/a

Ernest Moriel - Los Osos

n/a

Francis Liu - Oxford

n/a

Frank Delany - Claremont

Gabby Corral - Yucaipa

n/a

Gary McCarthy - LCC

n/a

Geoff Conner - Yucaipa

n/a

George Liu - University

n/a

Gregg Osborn - Helix Charter

n/a

Helen Doe - Damien

n/a

James Smith - Yucaipa

n/a

James Gill - CVHS

Jamie Kim - Oxford

n/a

Jason Park - University

n/a

Jennifer Osborn - Helix Charter

n/a

Jesi Faust - Oxford

n/a

Jin Lee - Northwood HS

n/a

Joara Hyun - Oxford

n/a

John Kim - Oxford

n/a

John Ostresh - LCC

n/a

Jon Williams - Oxford

n/a

Jonathan d'Souza - Los Osos

n/a

Jovana Karanovic - Oxford

n/a

Judy Painter - Yucaipa

n/a

Judy Chen-Lee - Troy

n/a

Jun Liu - CVHS

Kaitlyn Gomez - BHS

n/a

Kalen Sonka - Helix Charter

n/a

Kathryn Lewis - Claremont

Katy Westbrook - BHS

n/a

Kevin Glavin - Claremont

Kimberly Sitchler - Yucaipa

n/a

Krista Murray - Rosary

n/a

Liliana Guzman - Northwood HS

n/a

Loc Huynh - Northwood HS

n/a

Lynne Osorio - CVHS

Margaret Gallagher - Claremont

Mariah Thong - La Quinta

n/a

Marie Cagle - CVHS

Michelle Wu - Oxford

n/a

Michelle Lim - Oxford

n/a

Mimi Jubran - Oxford

n/a

Mke Sylva - CVHS

Mr. Roberts - CVHS

Mr. Garcia - IHHS

n/a

Ms. Shin - IHHS

n/a

Naemah Morris - IHHS

n/a

Nancy Hwango - Oxford

n/a

Naomi Alan - Damien

n/a

Nina Delavin - Damien

n/a

Patrick Wilkie - Claremont

Rachel Ross - BHS

n/a

Raymond Na - Los Osos

n/a

Ron Caruthers - LCC

n/a

Sagar Vuligonda - Northwood HS

n/a

Samantha Johnson - BHS

n/a

Sandra Fiene - Sonora

n/a

Sarah Sherwood - Servite

I did College level Parli and LD. I'm a flow judge. I'll vote on the K and T. I'm good with spread.

Scott Wheeler - Kudos

n/a

Seth Dandridge - Oxford

n/a

Shaun Mannion - Los Osos

n/a

Shefali Doshi - Northwood HS

n/a

Shelli Banko - Northwood HS

n/a

Suman Birda - Oxford

n/a

Sunil Patni - Northwood HS

n/a

Teja Vepa - Claremont

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Thomas Hyun - Oxford

n/a

Thomas McCloskey - Cypress

n/a

Tom Vavra - LHS

n/a

Tracy Liu - Esperanza

n/a

Vince Ledesma - Los Osos

n/a

2011 Cypress College High School Invitational Tournament