Judge Philosophies
Abe Nesheiwat - Cypress College
n/a
Alexa Kim - ModernBrain
n/a
Alfred Jino - AmerHer
n/a
Alice Gilman - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ana Simonelli - HASCS
n/a
Anagha Iyer - AmerHer
n/a
Anshu Chaudhary - Tourn Judges
n/a
Carlos Trelles - LYL
n/a
Catherine Cheng - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Cindy Do - QDLearning
n/a
Daniel Lai - ModernBrain
n/a
Daniel Hill - ModernBrain
n/a
Ellie Kim - ModernBrain
n/a
Eric Martinez - Contra Costa
n/a
Faryal Arif - ModernBrain
n/a
Gary Yablon - HASCS
n/a
Hao Shi - AmerHer
n/a
Heather Platon - HW
n/a
Jade Capella - AmerHer
n/a
Jason Kuo - ModernBrain
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LYL
n/a
Jiayou Liu - ModernBrain
n/a
John Liu - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Julia Cheng - LYL
n/a
Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC
n/a
Kathleen Hollasch - HASCS
n/a
Kelly Hutchison - Cypress College
n/a
Krishnni Khanna - ModernBrain
n/a
Luvienne Sans - LYL
n/a
Michael Cranshaw - Lawrence MS
n/a
Nick Matthews - Cerritos
Hello! I am the DOF at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:
- I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
- My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I mostly ran straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
- I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
- I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
- I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
- My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
- Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
- Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ... - In policy rounds, the affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
- Parli: I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.
I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).
Saanvi Kaul - AmerHer
n/a
Sanya Ahmed - AmerHer
n/a
Saujanya Vemuri - ModernBrain
n/a
Saurav Meena - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sofia Jackson - ModernBrain
n/a
Steven Tao - ModernBrain
n/a
Summer Ping - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vincent Kieu - Brooks Debate
n/a
Wenqi Yang - ModernBrain
n/a
YuQiao Shao - ModernBrain
n/a
Zachary White - Cypress College
Overall:
I think debate should be accesssible and educational. Be nice in your rounds, be courteous, and remember to be considerate of everyone's identities, religions, values, ability, etc. Don't make asssumptions about what I know or don't know. Always explain and warrant your impacts, links, etc with examples, explanations, etc. Off time roadmaps are great!
Parli:
I love parli! One of my favorite events and really enjoy judging it. Make sure to have clear links, clear warrants, good info. Cite and justify those sources. Be nice! Remember to call points of order as it is a part of the debate I enjoy is still around. Don't assume I will protect an argument.
Be respectful about partner communication. Don't puppet but notes or checking with your partner are fine in round within reason
LD:
Dislikes speed in LD (I just can't flow every argument as well as I want). I appreciate warrants, but I will try to read the sources you drop. Don't drop me bad evidence and expect me not to read it. I want good clash and clear links to arguments.
Background:
2 years of parlimentary debate and 5 years experience teaching debate. I prefer clash, clearly sturctured arguments, and making debate approachable. Give me examples, warrants, etc. Mostly competed in IEs, so I primarily value delivery elements, direct refutation, and a fun, friendly debate environment.
I will accept a stock issues, Ks, and identity arguments, but I prefer a debate within the general boundaries, limits, and standards of the resolution. If there is a topicality, moving target, or vagueness issue, feel free to call it out within reason. If you run procedurals for procedurals sake or feels heavily unwarranted, it may effect how I percieve the round. (Not so much in IPDA though)