FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

ALEX TAPIA - ELAC

n/a

Aditya Sharma - IVC

Ali Aldhalimi - Grossmont

Alysia Hendry - Mesa

Amanda Hale - IVC

Ana Sahagun - Cerritos College

Analicia Avila - Cerritos College

Arturo Cabrera - CBU

Bernice Hernandez - Rio

n/a

Bethany Lawler - CBU

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Bill Neesen Cal. State Long Beach/IVC Years Judging Debate: 22+ Years Competed in Debate: 7 What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton Section 1: General Information I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible. Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow. I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it. Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive. I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good. I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round. I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it. MPJ: My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.

Brandon Tanielu - OCC

CARLOS De La TORRE - ELAC

n/a

Carolina Beyer-Flores - Saddleback

Dana Jean Smith - Santiago Canyon

Daniela Fuentes - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

David Diaso - SDCC

n/a

Delara Gorjian - IVC

Dennis Gulyas - Mesa

Dennis Meador - Saddleback

Diana Fernandez - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Rodriguez - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Eric Post - Saddleback

Erin Harris - OCC

I believe delivery is as important as the arguments being made in a debate round, so I do not like speeding. I like a clean debate, and focus on stock issues. I do not like kritiks.

Fatima Alamire - IVC

Genesis Prizmic - IVC

Giovanni Herrera - Palomar

Haley Strickland - OCC

Hasnu Kwatra - Chapman

n/a

Heather May - CBU

Henry Navarrete - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Holland Smith - CSULA

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

n/a

Jackson Lee Spencer - Saddleback

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

Jake Glendenning - IVC

James Dabaggian - AVC

n/a

Janice Tessman - CSUN

n/a

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. Coached debate as a graduate at CSULB. Am the debate coach at SCC. I am confident that I can follow your arguments as long as you are organized. Debate is not a numbers game to me, having less dropped arguments than your opponent does no mean you win.

Jeff Somano - Long Beach

Jennifer Georgevich - IVC

Jesse Bleickhardt - Palomar

Jessika Seekatz - Palomar

Josh Nudelman - Chapman

n/a

Josh Stern - Saddleback

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Juan Guerrero - Rio

n/a

Juan Victorio - SMC

n/a

Julia Rear - Mesa

Juliana Damiano - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Kamiran Dadah - IVC

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kristin Coates - Fullerton Col

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Laura Tabah - Cerritos College

Lexi Weyrick - IVC

Madeline Kiphen - Rio

n/a

Magan Hall - Mesa

Marcia Regina - SMC

n/a

Matt Hinkle - IVC

Matt Volz - Santiago Canyon

I have an extensive beanie baby collection and appreciate it whenever people work beanie babies into their speech.

Matt Hamilton - Cerritos College

Matthew Ward - Mt SAC

CSUN  Communication Masters Student, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Maxwell Penich - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Megan Hasslinger - Palomar

Melissa Armstrong - Saddleback

Michael Moran - Rio

NICK McKnight - ELAC

n/a

NICK MONTERO - ELAC

n/a

Natalie Baghdassanan - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Nick Giangrande - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Nick Williams - IVC

Noreen Raja - Chapman

n/a

Noreen Safdar - IVC

Olivia Noceda - Saddleback

Ovido Sanchez - Rio

Patrick Donovan - IVC

Peter Doesburg - IVC

RAPHAEL AVINA - ELAC

n/a

RAUL HERRERA - ELAC

n/a

Rowan Edge - CSULA

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

SARAH NAAB - ELAC

n/a

Sakeenah Gallardo - Palomar

Sean Carmody - Vanguard

Shawn Plascencia - Rio

Shelby Stanton - Chapman

n/a

Solana Price - Saddleback

Stephanie Freedman - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Steven Villescas - Rio

Tara Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

Thanh Lee - CSULA

Thomas DeLeon - Mesa

Tim Seavey - Chapman

n/a

Udara Abeysakara - IVC

Valerie Swartz - Chapman

n/a

Willie Washington - CSUF

n/a

Yael Engel - Mt SAC

CSUN Senior Communication Major, Argumentation & Deliberation student, studying NPDA debate

Yisella Mariscal - Rio

n/a

2013 PSCFA Cool Off

Judge Philosophies

ALEX TAPIA - ELAC

Aditya Sharma - IVC

Ali Aldhalimi - Grossmont

Alysia Hendry - Mesa

Amanda Hale - IVC

Ana Sahagun - Cerritos College

Analicia Avila - Cerritos College

Arturo Cabrera - CBU

Bernice Hernandez - Rio

Bethany Lawler - CBU

Bill Neesen - Long Beach

Brandon Tanielu - OCC

CARLOS De La TORRE - ELAC

Carolina Beyer-Flores - Saddleback

Dana Jean Smith - Santiago Canyon

Daniela Fuentes - Mt SAC

David Diaso - SDCC

Delara Gorjian - IVC

Dennis Gulyas - Mesa

Dennis Meador - Saddleback

Diana Fernandez - Mt SAC

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Elizabeth Wolf - Cypress

Emily Rodriguez - Mt SAC

Eric Post - Saddleback

Erin Harris - OCC

Fatima Alamire - IVC

Genesis Prizmic - IVC

Giovanni Herrera - Palomar

Haley Strickland - OCC

Hasnu Kwatra - Chapman

Heather May - CBU

Henry Navarrete - Mt SAC

Holland Smith - CSULA

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

Jackson Lee Spencer - Saddleback

Jaimie Owens - Mesa

Jake Glendenning - IVC

James Dabaggian - AVC

Janice Tessman - CSUN

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

Jeff Somano - Long Beach

Jennifer Georgevich - IVC

Jesse Bleickhardt - Palomar

Jessika Seekatz - Palomar

Josh Nudelman - Chapman

Josh Stern - Saddleback

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Juan Guerrero - Rio

Juan Victorio - SMC

Julia Rear - Mesa

Juliana Damiano - Mt SAC

Kamiran Dadah - IVC

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kevin Nguyen - OCC

Kristin Coates - Fullerton Col

Kristina Rietveld - IVC

Laura Tabah - Cerritos College

Lexi Weyrick - IVC

Madeline Kiphen - Rio

Magan Hall - Mesa

Marcia Regina - SMC

Matt Hinkle - IVC

Matt Volz - Santiago Canyon

Matt Hamilton - Cerritos College

Matthew Ward - Mt SAC

Maxwell Penich - Mt SAC

Megan Hasslinger - Palomar

Melissa Armstrong - Saddleback

Michael Moran - Rio

NICK McKnight - ELAC

NICK MONTERO - ELAC

Natalie Baghdassanan - Mt SAC

Nick Giangrande - Mt SAC

Nick Williams - IVC

Noreen Raja - Chapman

Noreen Safdar - IVC

Olivia Noceda - Saddleback