Judge Philosophies
Adriena Young - CBU
n/a
Alexis Martinez - EPCC
n/a
Brian Hy - CSULA
Holland Smith - CSULA
J. Edward Stevenson - ELAC
n/a
Jackson Spencer - CSULA
n/a
Janice Tessman - Glendale, CA
Joel Anguiano - EPCC
n/a
Karen Swett - Glendale, CA
n/a
Libby Curiel - Rio
Nyeesha Hale - CBU
n/a
Rebecca Cannon - Glendale, CA
robert e g black - CSULA
<p>I competed in IEs and debate for four years and started coaching/judging last year.</p> <p>I like speeches to be clear--i.e. tell me where you're going at the beginning, tell me where you've been at the end, and you better have gone there in between. I competed in every event--interp more than platform or limited prep--at least once and have judged them all as well. So, do what you want to do within the usual guidelines and entertain and enlighten me and you will do well on my ballot. For interps specifically, I have been known to value performance over message, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a point to the piece you're doing and why you're doing it.</p> <p>As far as debate goes, I try my best to go by the flow which mean a) speeding is not in your best interest because if I cannot keep up and your argument doesn't get onto my flow it won't help you in the end, and b) I will accept most any position you present. Still, I don't like standard generic DAs; for example: politics--I think any Plan fiats away most, if not all, political capital arguments.</p> <p>Since I do try to go by the flow, I also will not usually dismiss automatically new arguments in rebuttals--I want you to catch them and call a point of order; if you can't catch it, I don't want to do the work for you.</p> <p>I prefer you have fun more than be technically perfect, that you make sense more than you fit the strict framework of debate. But, honestly, doing the latter can seriously help the former and, if you're doing it right, you should be able to do both.</p>