2018 IVC Fall Classic

Irvine Valley College - Oct 6 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   Results

Judge Philosophies

Adrian Beunder - IVC

 

Aldo Gastelum - IVC

 

Alexis Rock - IVC

 

Althea Gevero - IVC

 

Anahita Jafary - IVC

 

Andrea Dixon - IVC

 

Andrew Bhanubandh - IVC

 

Bryan Choi - Beckman

n/a

Bryan Choi - JTMS

n/a

Bryan Pencyla - IVC

 

Cody Herman - IVC

 

Dennice Saenz - IVC

 

Eilidh Stalker - IVC

 

Elaine Vo - IVC

 

Eli Wilson - IVC

 

Ian Breyer - IVC

 

John Cho - IVC

  • First, thank you for taking part in this activity! I'm excited to hear what you have to say!
  • Next, clash is incredibly important. Make sure you clear about what arguments you're addressing and please attempt to engage with the heart of your opponents arguments as best as you can
  • Impact analysis is also big with me. Explain to me why and in real terms why your arguments matter in the round.
  • In rebuttals, I'm looking for comparative analysis. Don't simply review your case. Explain to me why you think your points are better than the other sides'.
  • Clarity: I need to understand your arguments. Make sure that you're providing enough clear analysis of your points that I can pick up what you're putting down. If the other side is less clear, I might even pick you up just because you were clearer than the other side.
  • Kritiks: I generally am not a great person to run Kritiks in front of, but if both teams are down for it I can be down myself. I would encourage you to ask before the round what my stance on Kritiks are if you would like a more detailed answer
  • IPDA: I believe IPDA should be performed in a manner that would be engaging to a lay judge. I don't believe terms like topicality, kritik, or tricot belong in IPDA. That being said, if you can rhetorically unpack your arguments in a manner that you think would be persuasive to a lay judge, I could certainly still pick it up. While I don't want to hear the word "topicality" for example, if you explain in simple terms how the Affirmative team misdefined a term, describe why it's unfair to you, and give me some reasons why they should lose because of it, I could definitely buy that argument.
  • Feel free to ask me before the round if there's anything I haven't covered that you'd like clarification with!

Justin Williams - IVC

 

Justin Hendershott - IVC

 

Ketaki Joshi - IVC

 

Kylie Turi - IVC

 

Maleen Shafigh - IVC

 

Martin Ortiz - IVC

 

Michael Tinio - IVC

 

Michelle Pacetti - IVC

 

Oli Loeffler - IVC

  I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down. 

Paul Diamantopolis - IVC

 

Prafullit Medi - IVC

 

Randell Monzon - IVC

 

Risako Miki - IVC

 

Ryan Wang - IVC

 

Ryan Wang - IVC

 

Sam Greenberg - IVC

 

Sana Khan - IVC

 

Sara Moghadam - IVC

 

  • Please time yourselves.
  • Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
  • Iâm not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
  • Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
  • I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I wonât make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
  • I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
  • I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
  • Kâs should only be run when the other side believes itâs more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please donât assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
  • I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why itâs both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
  • I really really like to see clash within a debate.
  • Extend arguments!
  • Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I donât want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated. 
  • I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
  • Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends. 

Sara Moghadam - IVC

 

  • Please time yourselves.
  • Partner communication is absolutely welcome but I only flow whatever the speaker says.
  • Iâm not a big fan of speed though I can follow along fairly well. I would much rather hear a few very well-thought-out arguments as opposed to a bunch of flimsier ones.
  • Make sure to provide a framework as that is what I will follow.
  • I try to make my decision solely based on my flow and what is said within round. I wonât make any assumptions or link/impact out arguments for you.
  • I will vote on T or tricot as long as it makes sense.
  • I enjoy T arguments very much, but make sure to provide an interp, standards, and voters.
  • Kâs should only be run when the other side believes itâs more important than whatever is currently being debated and directly connects to the resolution. There should be clear links, impacts, and solvency/alternatives. The alt should solve at least some of the aff. Please donât assume I am familiar with the foundational literature.
  • I absolutely love counterplans, but make sure you explain why itâs both competitive and net beneficial. Make sure to still provide DAs.
  • I really really like to see clash within a debate.
  • Extend arguments!
  • Impacts and impact analysis are important! Make sure to impact everything out, I donât want to do the work for you. Tell me what I should consider most important and why. Also explain how competing arguments should be evaluated. 
  • I like clear links, impacts, and warrants. Warrants strengthen arguments and are something I definitely look for.
  • Make sure to summarize in the rebuttal why I should be voting for the aff/neg. Voters and impact calculus are your (and my!) best friends. 

Satoshi Yokyama - IVC

 

Stefan Forschner - IVC

 

Sumah Faqhir - IVC

 

Tatiahna Crishon - IVC