FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adele Ray - CVHS

Albert Castro - DRHS

I debated for two years in High School and this is my first year judging. I'm somewhat familiar with the topic, but I'm not too familiar with very specific abbreviations. I'm pretty open minded to any argument as long as you justify what you're advocating for and hopefully impact those justifications, I'll vote you up. With that said you can consider me a tabula rosa judge. DAs/CPs I'll vote on them. Just make sure you have valid claims and warrants for your evidence and if someone does make an absurd claim, call them out on it and explain why it's absurd. Just prove that the CP is competitive and has some Net Benefits. Theory/T I'm not too familiar with really in-depth theory, but if you do decide to run in front of me please explain how the other team is being abusive and don't be afraid to impact any of your claims. As for T, I'll vote on it. On a final note, slow down on these arguments, I'm not the fastest flower K's/Performance This is the argument I'm most familiar with. With that said, please don't expect me to default to the K just because I like it. If you're going to run a K in front of you, please do explain it, because I'm not too familiar with all of the really specific K's. If you end up running a K without an alt please give me reasons why it's better to not have an alt, or I'll just buy the solvency deficit arguments that are hopefully made by the aff. As for performance/non-traditional debate, I'm pretty open about it, but you have to give me reasons as to why your advocation is the better, and please do some sort of impact calculus towards the rebuttals. I would also prefer if you decide to do a performative argument to have a role of the ballot. Speed I'm cool with speed. I don't think I've ever debate a really fast team, but if you're going to fast I will ask you to slow down because I won't be able to flow your arguments. Also be very clear, espically with your tags. With that said, I'd like it if you slowed a half second to read your tags clearly if you're going really fast. Paperless Prep time ends as soon as the flash drive leaves the computer Overall I'd really like some impact calculus at the end of the round so my job ends up easier. I'd also really like it if you give me reasons as to why you won the debate. Also on a last note please don't be rude to one another in round.

Brian LaMay - VMHS

n/a

Christopher Smith - CVHS

Connor Biggerstaff - REV

Flow judge for debate, arguments are biggest factor in choosing a winner.  Congress combines both arguments and presentation, although arguments are a superior determinant in choosing top competitors.  I/E's are all about presentation, but Extemp. and Impromptu are excluded, extemp. needs sited sources in the given speech, just as Congress should, and impromptu competitors should perform speeches with substance for high rankings.

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.

David Hernandez - North

n/a

Don Inouye - VMHS

n/a

Donna Bergh - LQHS

n/a

Elisa Barr - Yucaipa

n/a

Emily Williams - Yucaipa

n/a

Gabriel Gutierrez - LQHS

n/a

Greg Bryant - VMHS

n/a

Ivan Fernandes - Yucaipa

n/a

Jim Halverson - Chino Hills

n/a

Jorge Lara - Yucaipa

n/a

Juan Rodriguez - LQHS

n/a

Julian Hartzell - North

n/a

Justin Lee - DRHS

I debated 4 years in High School and have judged for one year. I am currently studying for an International Development major at UCLA with a Philosophy minor. There are some arguments I prefer and some that I don't, but ultimately I am tabula rosa. Even if i think an argument is dumb i won't impose my beliefs through the ballot, its up to the other team to realize these things and make the appropriate counter claims. These suppressed beliefs however will be made evident on the ballot. I vote solely on what is on the flow. The continuation, explanation, and extension of important arguments are IMPORTANT meaning I cannot ever justify voting for a team on an argument that wasn't in subsequent speeches and the final rebuttal. The debate is your opportunity to express yourself however you wish (and hopefully with some purpose). Speed: Sandbagging an opponent who is not as fast may be a good strategy but won't win you much enthusiasm from me. I believe speed to be a means of introducing more ideas, arguements, and conflict in a round, not as a means of isolating and confusing the opponent. However i will still vote for you but don't expect any accolades for that act. I can generally handle speed but remember its clarity that counts and if i do ask you to clear/slow down, help a homie out. What is most important to me is the clearness of tags and AUTHOR'S NAMES (especially in the beginning of the year). T& Theory: Ill vote for it. Just to remember to slow down a bit so I can flow everything. You will be pretty hard pressed to get me to vote for an RVI however... K and Performance: I like and prefer these kinds of debates. The burden of proof lies on the negative however to really hash out and explain the criticism and the framework you provide. Just because i know the argument or the philosophical implications doesn't mean i'll be making these answers on the flow for you. Just because I am studying philosophy at a university doesn't mean i know all the literature (claiming so would seem quite pretentious). I do believe i am capable of understanding and comprehending most philosophical thought as long as the argumentation is concise and structured well, as all arguments should be right? Beware of general kritiks...I'll vote for them but you will probably need to do a real good job of making your criticism tangible. Non Traditional Debate is the way i see debate should be moving towards in order to better express one's own advocacy. If you are going to be doing this, be passionate and make sure theres an applicable and profound reason for doing so. Ive been guilty of not doing the latter... DA/CP: Ill vote for it. Just remember that each part of the argument needs a warrant and calling out pieces of evidence with exaggerated claims is valid. Cps are all about the net benefits and if you can come up with ANY reason there is competition i will evaluate it. I like: Native Americans,Nietzsche, Camus, Deleuze, Impact Calc, Friere, Diplo and SincerityDislike: Mean people, Heg, Sentences beginning with "It was the best of times it was the worst of times" and using the time i give to jump files to prep (shameeeee)

Karen Mountain - VMHS

n/a

Katherine Valdovinos - Yucaipa

n/a

Kathleen Jures - Great Oak

n/a

Kim Krausert - VMHS

n/a

Laura Bassil - CVHS

Lori Murguia - Yucaipa

n/a

Maria Zarglis - Yucaipa

n/a

Martin Bustos - LQHS

n/a

Mr. Winters - CVHS

Oralia Lara - Yucaipa

n/a

Penny Richter - VMHS

n/a

Raymundo Orozco - North

n/a

Rebecca Sanchez - Yucaipa

n/a

Rhonda Thomson - CVHS

Rick Feliciano - LQHS

n/a

Rizal Singh - CVHS

Scott Boydston - Yucaipa

n/a

Scott Moscrop - SJVA

n/a

Sharon Seymore - Chino Hills

n/a

Shawnee Biggerstaff - REV

Todd Harcarik - VMHS

n/a

Traci Bosse - Yucaipa

n/a

Vincent Le - DRHS

Virginia Colot - VMHS

n/a

Wendy Hunt - CVHS

William Marshall - Chino Hills

n/a

2012 CBSR Teamed Debate/Student Congress