Judge Philosophies
Abe Nesheiwat - Cypress College
n/a
Alexa Kim - ModernBrain
n/a
Alexandra Smith - Tourn Judges
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
Experience-
Hey there you all, my name is Kelly Hutchison and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Cypress College. I recieved my master's at the University of the Pacific in Communication. I have two years of competitive experience at the community college level. I continued my parliamentary debate career at the four year level at CSULB where I was ranked top 13 in the nation prior to national. I then went on to compete in individual events at CSULB qualifying limited prep events (extemporaneous speaking and impromptu) at AFA. After my competitive career, I have been coaching and judging for several years. Now that you know a little about my involvement as a competitor and a judge, let's discuss how I view debate!
Pedagogy-
I view this activity as a unique place to hone advocacy skills and to learn about current events that are going on in the world around us. This activity is the perfect storm of education, competition, strategy, and community. I find it helpful to remember that all of us were once novices in this space and should create spaces for everyone and anyone interested in the activity.
Speed-
I can most assuredly keep up with your speed, if I can't I have no problem "clearing" or "slowing" in round. Although I think speed can increase the competitive nature of the activity, I feel that rounds should be inclusive to all debaters. Therefore, if a team requests debaters to slow down for equity purposes, you should.
The Topic-
I think the affirming the topic is the burden of the affirmative. I believe that switch side debate checks back for rejecting the topic at large. Although I have voted on positions that do so. I do not think that affirming the topic necessarily means that you as a debater are upholding the implicit undertones of the resolution. Basically, you are not a bad person for saying the state is good. On the other hand, I acknowledge that rhetoric and one's position do matter.
K-
I think that kritiks are a great tool for questioning the methods of the affirmative. I am more persuaded by alternatives that attempt to solve the aff. I am highly persuaded by the arguments that rethink and reject alternatives are artificially competitive. I prefer Ks that have strong/unique links to the affirmative action. I have a very low threshold for generic links or links of omission.
Theory-
I like theory positions and have voted on them. I prefer well flushed out theory positions that the debater can collapse to, as opposed to "blippy"/ unwarranted theory that does not have argumentative precedent. I don't know how to resolve trigger warning theory, disclosure theory, or exclusionary framework theory. I am not saying don't run these positions, but I am not sure how to resolve them. TDLR, I am probably listening to your T, condo, vagueness shells, but not "you must read a plan text in the first three minutes of your speech" theory positions. In terms of dispo theory, I think that the negative always has access to the status quo. The status quo is presumed and not an advocacy.
Concessions-
If you drop an argument, it is dropped. I protect the flow, but please call points of order. I am persuaded by crafty arguments rooted in fact. I have a very high BS meteor and a low threshold for you to refute claims that are not true. I try and not vote for arguments that are explicitly false. Please don't make things up to justify your arguments, this affects your ethos in round.
Remember debate is fun and a great place to make friends (across team lines) and learn things about the world!
Krishnni Khanna - ModernBrain
n/a
Luvienne Sans - LYL
n/a
Michael Cranshaw - Lawrence Gifted
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
Stephan Brooks - Brooks Debate
STEPHAN BROOKS
COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND:
- Founder / Coach @ Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2016-Present)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Debate Coach @ Stanford National Forensics Institute in Stanford, CA (Summer 2013-15)
- Debate Coach @ Cal National Debate Institute in Berkeley, CA (Summer 2013)
- Debate & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School in Redwood City, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Debate Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)
I am former debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several California Bay Area schools and programs, including my own private program. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days.
JUDGING PREFERENCES:
- First and foremost, I am a "policymaker" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging 90% of debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards
- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.
- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.
- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.
- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.
- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that crap at home. I want real-world impacts not BS theory garbage.
- On that note, I HATE THEORY. I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! (unless your opponent is legit guilty of a fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc.)
- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.
- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.
- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose. And don't bother reading me your stupid block about how reading more stuff is more educational, nothing is educational if it sounds like gibberish, and if you read that block I'll vote you down AND give you negative 500 speaker points. And next to your negative 500 speaker points, I'll write my own education block note stating how receiving negative 500 speaker points is educational and will teach you not to spread in the future when your judge says that they hate spread. And then when ballots get scanned online, your friends will see your negative 500 speaker points, laugh at you, and reinforce that education.
- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible, even if a tournament director tells me not to. What are they going to do if I break their rule, ban me from judging and doing more work? Oh no! How horrible! I'll just have to sit in the judges room all day, eat free food, and catch up on my work.
MY DEBATE PET PEEVES YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF:
- You absolutely do not need to shake my hand. Kids spread germs, I don't know where your hand has been, I usually work seven days a week and can't afford to get sick. I'll just assume you're sincere about thanking me for judging regardless of whether or not we shook hands and/or the outcome of the debate.
- Am I cool with off-time road maps? No. I'm not cool. (PF Debate only) First, in the time it took you to ask me that, you probably couldn't just given your road map already. Second, it takes just 5 seconds of your time to road map anyways, how precious are those 5 seconds to you, are you going to tell me the meaning of life in those 5 seconds or something? Third and most importantly, are you paying me extra to stay at the tournament longer? If the answer to that last question is no, then forget about your off-time road map. It should really just be called your off-time make Stephan Brooks stay at the tournament longer plan. I am so not cool with that.
- I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying too, especially when those materials are requested by opponents. If your opponent kindly asks to see a piece of evidence, and it takes you longer to produce that evidence on your laptop/device than it normally would have had you simply just printed the evidence, I will consider dropping you, as it is not cool to be unable to produce evidence during limited prep in an educational activity.
- If you're not getting up to speak, I'm running your prep time. Don't ask for set amounts of prep time- how the heck do you know that you only need 30 seconds to think through everything you need to say? Are you psychic? Also, don't disagree with me about how much prep time you have left- you'll lose.
- Don't be a @#$!& during the debate. You'll lose. It's nice to be nice.
- I have judged since 2005 and can count on my hands the number of times I have legitimately bought a nuclear war impact. If you want me to weigh mushroom clouds on your side, you better work hard for them. Also, you might be on mushrooms if you think I will vote for a silly illogical/unwarranted nuclear war impact.
- Do NOT spend half of the debate crying abuse (this is for you Parli people!) and claiming your opponent is violating the rules of _ debate. If they are, I will be smart enough to catch it and you'll win. If they aren't, you will come off as extremely annoying. I love to punish annoying complainers with losses and low speaker points- the low speaker points is to ensure you will not break to elimination rounds based on speaks so I don't have to hear you cry unnecessarily in elimination rounds.
- I cannot stress enough how much I hate theory. I watched an elimination round where a competitor won the coin flip for sides, selected AFF, and argued that he was disadvantaged having to debate on the AFF side. Back in my day, new topics came out, and us kids would be excited to debate a new topic- we would not look forward to arguing the same abuse arguments regardless of the resolution.
- As far as I'm concerned, Counter-Plans are legal in all debate formats, Public Forum included. We should always be able to argue that the reason we shouldn't do X is because Y is an option, and there is an opportunity cost at stake. I don't care what the stupid NSDA rules say in Public Forum. Also, 99% of you who do Public Forum and complain about counter-plans likely were never taught the 4-5+ necessary components of an actual CP, so shush.
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)