Adam Navarro -- Palomar Collegen/a
Adam Kaminsky -- College of the Canyonsn/a
Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debaten/a
Daniela Vasquez -- Azusa Pacific Universityn/a
Dewi Hokett -- Palomar Collegen/a
Evan Ziegler -- Hired Judgesn/a
Fernanda De La O -- Azusa Pacific Universityn/a
James Laky -- Point Loma Nazarene University
Short version: My debate philosophy, in a nutshell, is that impacts are the most important part of the debate. If you don’t impact a position or tell me how it interacts with an impact, then it’s basically just empty space on my flow.
Specifics: I prefer good straight up debate but I’ll listen to any kriticism as long as it’s contextualized properly. I absolutely love theory debate, but I have a big pet peeve when people run theory positions (or Kritiks) they don’t fully understand. I definitely view theory from a competing interpretations framework. I won’t protect against new arguments so be sure to call out points of order. I’m a flow judge but I look primarily at the big picture of all the positions so don’t expect one subpoint to win you the round unless you explain how it interacts with the macro-debate. I like a good plan-counterplan debate, but I also think that line-by-line case debate is an art that should be emphasized more. I have zero issue with speed but if you’re going to spread, I’ll expect there to be content to justify that."
Janiel Victorino -- Hired Judgesn/a
Jonathan Veal -- Point Loma Nazarene University
Be cool to your opponents.
Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked.
I evaluate theory.
Policy is cool I guess.
K’s are great if the alt/advocacy has some sort of methodology/solvency.
I tend to hack out for uniqueness evaluation and warrants.
Speed is fine as long as your opponents and I can understand you and are able to participate.
Meh, have fun.
Kelsey Abele -- Arizona State Universityn/a
Kiefer Storrer -- Maricopa Speech and Debate
Competed 4 years high school Policy, 4 years college parli. Took a year off, judged, then helped coach a comprehensive program in Grad School. Currently in my 2nd year of head coaching, 3rd year of professional coaching. I think debate is whatever you want to make it. It can be a game or a really good platform of advocacy, so I'm pretty supportive of like, inclusive arguments, theory, projects, etc. Speed is fine but especially in Parli give me clear tag lines. You don't need to read DAs to prove abuse on procedurals, just explain to me args you missed out on. Umm. Don't kick offense, please. I like clash and impact calc unless you are warranting out other places I should be specifically voting. Good luck, have fun; don't be a dick.