FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

NOVA 42 Judge 1 - Nova 42

n/a

Abby Mars - Larchmont WeHo

n/a

Arianne Bushkin - Larchmont WeHo

n/a

BJ Hathaway - Harker

n/a

Bimal Sangari - OLIVE

n/a

Christian Ortiz - Kudos

n/a

Dan Tseng - RIS

n/a

Dara Williams - Emerson

n/a

David Chavez - Nova 42

n/a

Deliliah Strauss - Kudos

n/a

Harriet Shaham - New West

n/a

Janeth Banks - Fremont

n/a

Jennifer Noyd - FMS 2

n/a

Jessica McFerren - New West

n/a

Jocelyn Tabata - Emerson

n/a

Jonathan Ku - RIS

n/a

Lennar Madlansacay - New West

n/a

Logan Ferguson - Emerson

n/a

Lorena Martinez - Harker

n/a

Mandy Nelson - New West

n/a

Max Zade - Nova 42

n/a

Michael Britton - Kudos

n/a

Mike Kyle - Nova 42

n/a

Neeta Loomba - RIS

n/a

Nikhil Murty - RIS

n/a

Pinky Khan - RIS

n/a

Robyn Shev - New West

n/a

Samantha Weiss - RIS

n/a

Sanjay Murty - RIS

n/a

Sonali Tambe - RIS

n/a

Stephan Brooks - OLIVE

COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND: - Public Forum & Lincoln-Douglas Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-Present) - Public Forum Coach @ Olive Children Foundation in Fremont, CA (2011-Present) - Public Forum & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School (2012-Present) - Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011) - Public Forum & Parliamentary Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005) I am former Parliamentary & Public Forum Debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NFL Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached Public Forum since 2005. I have coached 10 CHSSA California State and NFL National qualifying teams and both the 2007 & 2008 California State Championship teams in Public Forum Debate (Asir-Curson & Ashford-Nguyen respectively). 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. - 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 suck) then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo. - As a policymaker judge and a believer in having strong offensive arguments: 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. - 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 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. - 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! 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. - I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying, especially when requested by opponents. - 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? 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.

Steven Leal - OLIVE

Sung Sil Lee - RIS

n/a

Susan Ferguson - Emerson

n/a

Virginia Yabuta - RIS

n/a

Vivian Amezcua - RIS

n/a

parul Gaur - RIS

n/a

2013 Glendale Middle School Warm-up Speech and Debate Competition