2019 IVC Fall Classic

Irvine Valley College - Oct 5 | Status: Completed

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

Judge Philosophies

Aldo Gastelum - IVC

 

Althea Gevero - IVC

 

Anni Chen - IVC


Ariba Siddiqi - IVC


Bailey Shoemaker - IVC


Brandon Xue - IVC


Darby Conner - IVC


Diya Jain - MLA

n/a

Eilidh Stalker - IVC

 

Eli Wilson - IVC

 

Hedieh Sorouri - IVC


Ian Breyer - IVC

 

Ilham Sheikh - 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!

Maral Foroush - IVC


Marlene Bronson - IVC


Melody Mirghavameddin - IVC


Mira Ogawa - IVC


Nader Gavami - IVC


Robin Barker - IVC


Ryan Wang - IVC

 

Sam Greenberg - IVC

 

Sana Khan - IVC

 

Sophie Habibion - IVC


Spencer Wilhelm - IVC


Stephanie Frazier - IVC


Tatiahna Crishon - IVC

 

Tina Tang - IVC


Zihad Amin - IVC

  Judging Philosophy

 

2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round