Judge Philosophies
Abby Gorman - UCSD
n/a
Alexandra Smith - NOF
n/a
Alexis Rodriguez - SAGE
n/a
Aly Hamel - S&D Institute
n/a
Amad Azim - UCSD
n/a
Amanda Hsieh - Uni HS
n/a
Amanda Nobra - NOF
n/a
Amy Furber-Dobson - Confident Class
n/a
Angela Ohland - Butte
I'm a fairly new judge to the forensics community. I am primarily an IE judge/coach and have limited experience with debate. As a result, please consider me a lay judge and try to use clear roadmapping and speak clearly and persuasively. I appreciate an impactful opening and a clear preview.
Fairness and respect are paramount for me. My goal is to provide constructive (primarily delivery focused feedback) that helps competitors refine their skills. I look forward to witnessing your talents on display!
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Annie Yu - ModernBrain
n/a
Anya Luo - ModernBrain
n/a
Asha Taylor - Speak In Power
n/a
Benjamin Sun - Palmarian 22-23
Hello everyone! My name is Ben Sun - a 7th grade middle school student at Palms Middle School.
I have done PF and won Public Forum Debate at Elementary Nationals in 2019.
This is how I judge different types of debate:
Debate - Public Forum:
I have a public forum speciality. I am a hypothesis tester.
A hypothesis tester is viewing the topic resolution as a hypothesis that the affirmative team tests through their plan. This paradigm represents a heavy focus on resolution debate instead of plan-focused debate, and opens up some non-standard options for negative teams to use against the affirmative. Generic topic attacks, inherency arguments, counterplans, counterwarrants, and conditional arguments are generally all accepted by me.
LD/Policy debaters: I want the same from you guys.
Congress:
In working- I will explain to you what I want during the round
Speech:
In working - I will explain to you what I want during the round
Bryan Banuelos - BASIS Fremont
n/a
Caitlin Drees - IVC
I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.
My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.
Carina Garret - Palmarian 22-23
n/a
Cassandra Caron - Confident Class
n/a
Christy Yang - Able2Shine
n/a
Claire Crossman - IVC
Cliff Fan - QDLearning
n/a
Daniella Glebov - AmerHer
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt. SAC
Debate should be presented in such a way that a lay audience can understand the arguments and learn something from the debate. In general, debaters should have strong public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation. Don't rely on me to fill in the holes of arguments or assume we all know a certain theory or argument -- it is your burden to prove your arguments.
Derrick Braswell - NOF
n/a
Dhruv Iyer - AmerHer
n/a
Eduardo Osorio - UCSD
n/a
Edward Rumbos-Perez - S&D Institute
n/a
Emily (Egshiglen) Purevtseren - Nova 42
n/a
Emma Delgado - AmerHer
n/a
Esther Oyetunji - AmerHer
n/a
Gayathri Donepudi - UCSD
n/a
Genevieve Dietz - UCSD
I have both speech and debate experience and have been judging the PSCFA circuit for 3 years.
Please clearly signpost and give me reasons to vote in your last speech.
I'd prefer no spreading.
and have fun! :)
Happy Hai - Able2Shine
n/a
Helena Shen - BASIS Fremont
n/a
Huang Emerald - Able2Shine
n/a
Jasmine Moheb - UCSD
Hey everyone, my name is Jasmine (she/her/her's) and I come from four yeas of high school experience mainly in Congressional Debate (I competed at district and national level, CHSSA state, and was a finalist at the 2018 TOC) and am now entering my third year in collegiate debate. In college, I compete in the NPDA (parliamentary debate with more tech)/IPDA/BP formats so I am well-versed in everything from technical debate to more lay, rhetoric-heavy debate. I have been coaching debate for six years now and judging for three years, most recently at the 2020 NSDA nationals. I do not like/cannot follow *extreme* spreading, so please avoid doing that if I am judging a policy round. Overall, I look for well-articulated arguments with clear and coherent links as well as concrete impacts. Unique contentions are always a plus. It is very important in Congress to show to me that you are interacting with the round if you are one of the later speakers; clash is appreciated. In other debates, I would consider myself to be a flow judge, so organization and clarity is critical. I am also familiar with and have judged all speech events and there is less of a paradigm I can give for that because everyone is so different, just enjoy your time in speech and debate and performing! Best of luck to everyone!
Jasper Wu - UCSD
n/a
Jay Yan - GSA
n/a
Jennifer Baney - MSJC
My judging paradigm is a policymaker. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot.
Tips for the neg team: I will vote heavily on disadvantages and counter plans. I find that the chance for students to build their neg case in relation to those items makes for a debate round that is both entertaining and educational therefore easier to judge. However, something that I do not value in a debate is arguments used to fill time rather than which appears to be the overall use of Topicality. Specifically, unless someone is clearly not topical I think it just fills time in debate and removes any educational value so don't run it just to run it. Additionally, my paradigm solves so there should be no need to have a topicality. K's are okay but again unless there is a blatant obvious or necessary it removes the educational value from the debate. To clarify K's are awesome when if you want to sip on some coffee and talk about all sorts of theories, please send me an invitation. However, in a debate round.
Tips for aff: you should make sure that you are calling the neg for these items. It is your job to shape the round fairly and to hold a lasting impact. Do not remove education by making the round too restrictive and please include advantages as well as impacts that are unique. The simplest way to view the debate and remove bias is weighing affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages because it allows for impacts to decide the ballot. Impacts win my ballot 9/10 times but this does not mean claiming the biggest impact wins but rather the most logical impact carries the most amount of weight.
General tips: I like clear speed but you have to create the most inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. If you are competing against someone who cannot handle your speed it is your responsibility to become inclusive. I flow on a laptop so that means that I need labels to be explicit regardless if you spread or not. I refuse to take "outside gossip" as a role on my ballot and if you decide slander is your game, best of luck.
TLDR; All I really care about are impacts, however, if you want to make the round more enjoyable for me and follow the other stuff I really enjoy, sounds good.
Jenny Yu - Able2Shine
n/a
Jin Xu - Able2Shine
n/a
Jing Chen - ModernBrain
n/a
Joan Huh - Wilshire
n/a
John Andolina - UCSD
n/a
Kaitlin Foster - Butte
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Kaya Morales - UCSD
n/a
Kennedy Hack-Juman - AmerHer
n/a
Krishnni Khanna - ModernBrain
n/a
Laura Chikami - UCSD
n/a
Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lena Cohen - UCSD
n/a
Liliana Canchola - ACLA Network
n/a
Lizeth Chimal - Mt. SAC
Hi! My Name is Lizeth Chimal.
When judging, I want a clear reason on why I should be voting for you. (Make it easy for me) I should not have to fill in the holes. Logic in arguments is very important. The more you break down an argument the more enticed I will be to vote for you. Have fun! No spreading.
Mackenzie Mattila - NAU
Mat Marr - BASIS Fremont
n/a
Meera Kalluraya - ModernBrain
n/a
Meiyu Yu - Able2Shine
n/a
Merce Gerdes - UCSD
n/a
Mikaella Mishiev - AmerHer
n/a
Misha Boyko - UCSD
n/a
Narisi Wang - ModernBrain
n/a
Natalie Penn - ModernBrain
n/a
Nick Matthews - Cerritos
Hello! I am the Director of Forensics 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 NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA 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 that is faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably 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 specialized in 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, ... - 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.
- 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.
Olivia Brandeis - BT
n/a
Padmanabhan Sadagopan - GSA
n/a
Ping Luo - BASIS Fremont
n/a
Rehaan Tata - UCSD
n/a
Renee Orton - MSJC
Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm
I believe
that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use
a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their
delivery. I do not like nor tolerate
spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear,
understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the
debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I
debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you
understand my delivery preferences.
I
flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the
resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms,
impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject
matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't
understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot.
Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's
disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.
In
NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and
counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option
picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is
indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just
to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking
time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss
of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant,
obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly
remove the educational value from the debate.
Ritabrata Mitra - NOF
n/a
Saanya Dham - AmerHer
n/a
Sabrina Tsai - UCSD
n/a
Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Selene Aguirre - Cerritos
As an educator, the core of my teaching and judging philosophy is empowerment and inclusion. My experiences are primarily focused on platform speaking. However, Iâ??ve taught Argumentation and Debate for the past four years and have developed a few preferences when judging IPDA, Parli, and LD.
As a debater, I expect you to speak with clarity, a bit faster than a conversation speaking rate (but avoid speeding if the speech will be affected), and loud enough for me to hear you. I prefer off-time roadmaps for clarity, appreciate signposts throughout speeches, and praise respectfulness and good sports[person]ship. Also, I am a tabula rasa judge (consider myself a clean slate). I will allow you to guide the round and not let my preconceived ideas cloud my judgment. Therefore, I look for clear and well-supported arguments, evidence, and analysis, and lastly, let me know how you weigh your impacts and why your voters are more critical than your opponent. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm if thereâ??s no way to assess it another way. Lastly, have fun and enjoy your time!
Inclusion is not a matter of political correctness. It is the key to growth. -Jesse Jackson
Shannan Troxel-Andreas - Butte
I'm primarily an IE judge/coach but have been a DOF for the last several years.
I don't always like debate - help me to like it by:
-Using clear roadmapping
-Speaking clearly and persuasively (Especially in IPDA - it's an act of persuasion, an art)
- Be respectful of your opponent and judges
-I love to see Neg do more than essentially saying no to all of the Aff
- Show me on the flow how you've won - convince me
Shazaib Bandukda - UCSD
n/a
Srividya Jayaram - GSA
n/a
Subashini Swaminathan - UCSD
n/a
Subhashini Yegappan - GSA
n/a
Syrus Azarbarzin - Uni HS
n/a
Taylor Stickle - Saddleback
n/a
Tyler Jang - UCSD
n/a
Ulysses Hsu - ModernBrain
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vidhi Madan - UCSD
n/a
Vivian Mei - ModernBrain
n/a
Wren Xu - UCSD
n/a
Xuejun Jiao - Able2Shine
n/a
Yeqing Fu - Able2Shine
n/a
Yevin Chon - UCSD
n/a
Yona Lu - Able2Shine
n/a
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
katelyn mcqueen - ACLA Network
n/a