2024 PSCFA Cool-Off April 27th-28th

Santiago Canyon College - Apr 27-28 | Status: Completed | 1:19 PM Pacific

Tournament Image
Tournament Time: 1:19 PM Pacific
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

Alejandro Hernandez - Cerritos

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1pKdXDGAKTnsHzRrreY2o5oDZh1e1l9nZ

Alex Christenson - Compton College

n/a

Andrew Yllescas - CSUN

n/a

Angel Wang - Fullerton College

n/a

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas - SDSU

Cal Veitch - OCC

n/a

Caleb Sutherlin - SCC

n/a

Caleb Tessitore - SCC

n/a

Campbell Gorlinski - OCC

n/a

Charles Dherlin - OCC

n/a

Chelsey Barrera - OCC

n/a

Cienna Collicott (They/Them) - Maricopa

IPDA________________________________________________________________________ I competed mainly inIPDA, so I do have a pretty decent idea of how thisshouldgo :) I enjoy clean, respectful debate. Clearly put: 1. Respect your opponent, refer to them appropriately and respectfully. 2. Structure is key. Clearly lay out your definitions,weighing mechanisms, roadmaps, and comparing your side to your opponent's side and give me clear voters. 3. Own the space when it is your time, use it to it's full extent to prove to me that I should vote for you while keeping your speed manageableand everything organized so I can follow. Keep in mind that this is IPDA, avoid jargon, counter plans, and things that we would use in parli, because if I was judgingparli that's what the top of my ballot and your posting would say. I am a flow judge, if I can write it down I will review it at the end to decide who wins. That being said, tell me where I should pay attention on my flow and why I should lean to your side. I allow off time road maps as long as they are timely and organized. PARLI_______________________________________________________________________ Full transparency, I competed in Parli for one tournament and I was still using note cards to fully remember the jargon. So what I ask is: 1. Slow your roll, allow this debate to be accessible to me and your competitor and avoid spreading and hard to process jargon. 2. Guide me through the flow, where do you want me to focus and how should I weigh the most. 3. If you want to run a K or a counterplan, you can, as long as you "hold my hand" through it and do so while respecting your opponent. I would also keep in mind my parli paradigm to get an idea of what I am most comfortable with within a round.

Cindy Do - CSUF

n/a

Collin Rauscher - Grossmont

n/a

Danielle Rees - SDSU

n/a

Danielle Kabboul - Compton College

n/a

Dia Hill - Palomar

n/a

Dominic Craddock - Fullerton College

n/a

Dulce Santana - RioRunners

n/a

Edwin Ramirez - CSUN

n/a

Enzo Mederos - Fullerton College

n/a

Frank Hernandez - Cypress College

n/a

Gerardo Silva - Cerritos

n/a

Gohan Huynh - OCC

n/a

Hannah Wilson - SD Mesa

Most importantly - have fun! Be respectful and nice, everyones here to learn. Please do not spread, I will likely just stop listening. Have good organization and clear taglines, it makes it easier for everyone.

Explain why your arguments matter for the debate. Impacts are important, so make sure I know what yours are. If you don't tell me what to focus on/why it's important I focus on that then I will have to pick what I think is most important. I like big picture arguments, spoon feed everything to me - this is important because this will happen and that means I will not draw conclusions for you. Include voters so I know what you want me to vote on.Good luck and have fun!

Izzy Ayala - RioRunners

n/a

Jack Wisinski - SDSU

n/a

Jacob Muller - OCC

n/a

Jamielynn Go - SD Mesa

1. Respect and Kindness: First and foremost, I expect sportsmanship from each side. Anything unethical or ad hominem will not be tolerated. This also includes yelling and misuse of interjections.

2. No spreading: Spreading is also not tolerated. Speeches should be given at a digestible pace, with high clarity. If I cant understand your argument, then theres no way for me to judge it.

3. Clear argumentation: I do not value jargon-y rhetoric. Your argument should be logical and clear enough that anyone is able to understand it.

Janine Rho - SD Mesa

Treat everyone in the round with kindness and respect. You will be dropped if you resort to ad hominem attacks or insulting behavior. Have fun and I will, too!

NPDA/LD:

Please be organized! I appreciate clear signposts, a clear weighing mechanism, and direct refutation. Dont assume I will make links in my head or draw conclusions for youtell me why your case is more impactful, has more magnitude, etc. I only flow what is explicitly said.

Give me clear voters.

Im not a big fan of Ks. Most topics are debatable and reasonable for both sides.

IPDA:

Treat me like a lay judge. I believe that IPDA is an informal-debate-over-dinner style of argumentation. Keep it conversational and persuade me!

General notes:

  • Your delivery as a speaker is important and impacts your ethos in the round.
  • Please do not spread. I will stop flowing/ listening if I cant understand you, so speak to be understood.
  • I dont flow CX. Tell me in your speeches what happened during CX if you want me to flow/weigh it.

Jared Kubicka-Miller - SCC

I have been competing in, or coaching forensics for more than 20 years. I specialized in NPDA and limited preparation events, but I competed in most events, and I have coached them all. Since this philosophy is primarily for debaters to reference, I believe that any debate must start with a good faith effort to identify an issue that is fairly debatable. I consider it my job to judge who are the better debaters, not who is right. If I know you are factually wrong about an issue, I will only make that a part of my decision if your opponent points it out. 

For the affirmative. It is not uncommon for debaters to mistake exclusionary practices as cleverness. I encourage unorthodox, and unpredictable approaches to topics, but I consider it a sign of weakness if debaters disregard a debate topic in order to introduce a "safe" case that they have practiced numerous times before. If you happen to get a topic that you are familiar with, good for you. But, I will give your opponent's a lot of latitude if it seems like you are using the privilege of speaking first as a way to revoke access to legitimate negative arguments. 

For the negative. If you feel that your opponent is unfairly limiting access to the debate activity, it is not enough just to accuse them. There must be proof to back up the accusation. In other words, I expect you to explain the arguments you believe are legitimately, and exclusively afforded to the negative. And, by explain I do not mean to just give me a title of the argument, I expect a complete description. it should be clear how your arguments address the heart of the matter, and not just what you hoped to talk about.

Above all, I have little regard for debate tricks that have zero application outside of a round. Make sure you prepare arguments that are genuine, relevant, accurate, and rational. Do not rely exclusively on offense. Incorporate strategic defensive arguments and use them to mitigate your opponent's points. I rarely see debates won on 100% offense. Credibility matters, and might be the difference in a close round. 

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!

Jordan Kay - Palomar

NO SPREADING

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, just have fun. Be kind. Be considerate. Talk to me and your opponents like we're human beings deserving of basic decency. Ts are fine if the way the Aff has set up the round is particularly egrigous, but I'm not a big fan of 'Ts and Ks for Ts and Ks sake'. Forensics is a communication activity. Connect with us.

For IPDA, please keep parli tech and terminology minimal

Julissa Celis - Compton College

n/a

Justin Lineweaver - SD Mesa

Have fun and be kind. This is supposed to be a supportive and educational environment, so be respectful of one another. I need impacts to vote for you because arguments without impacts are just aimless statements. And please tagline wherever you are in your speech at all times. I have NPDA experience and can tell you that organization wins rounds. And no spreading!

Karina Richardson - OCC

n/a

Kate Klein - OCC

n/a

Katelyn Ayala - RioRunners

n/a

Kyle Duffy - COC

Kyle's Judging Philosophy

Hey there! I've been judging since 2016, mostly Individual Events like Prose, Drama, Informative, and Persuasive, so I'm more of a storytelling, logic-and-feelings kind of judge than a speed-and-theory one. Here's what I want you to know before we dive in:

The Please Dont's
  • Don't spread. Fast = fuzzy. I'd rather hear a select few of your BEST arguments, not all the ones you found in a panic five minutes ago.
  • Don't talk too fast. Talk to me like a normal human being. I have ADHD, the slower the better. I will unintentionally tune out if its a word avalanche.
  • Don't be mean. No personal attacks, no condescending vibes. Be passionate, not petty.
The Please Do's
  • Be clear and structured. Signpost your points like you're giving me GPS directions. Help me stay on the map. (I get lost easily)
  • Define your debate lingo. If you use fancy terms like "topicality" or "impact calculus", explain it. Pretend I'm 5 and I know nothing about debate (not far from the truth, lol).
  • Explain why it matters. Great logic is cool but tell me why your argument wins the round in the big picture final moment.
  • Time yourselves. I'm focused on you, not my stopwatch. Help me stay present.
Bonus Points (Not Really, But Spiritually)

These wont affect your score but they will make for a fun round:

  • Crack a joke? LOVE IT. Even if it flops, I respect the risk.
  • Feeling the feels? YES. Get emotional if the topic calls for it.
  • Use a weird metaphor about dinosaurs or robot lasers? CHEFS KISS.
  • Reference a fun fact, meme, or pop culture moment that fits? I'm here for it.
  • Make creative analogies or silly examples? I love those, bring 'em on.
  • Try something a little different? I'll always respect a creative risk. I'm rooting for you, not against you.
What I'm Really Judging

Two big things:

  • Did you convince me with logic and evidence?
  • Did you move me with passion and connection?

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for people who care about their ideas and can make me care, too.

Final Words: Lets Make This Round Awesome!

Relax. Breathe. Be your weird, wonderful self. I'm fun. I'm fair. I believe that ALL students are MY students, so I'm rooting for you! Let's leave this round together thinking: Dang, that was actually fun!

Now go give 'em hell (respectfully).

Lauryn Osborne - SD Mesa

n/a

Leila Cisneros - SCC

n/a

Lilianna Huynh - PCC

I have more of an IE background. Please keep this in mind and avoid spreading and using jargon that a layman judge would not understand. My main focus will be on signposting, logical flow, and organization of the argument, but as speakers - understand that delivery is also important. I expect things to be civil and happy debating!

Liz Encarnacion - Chaffey

n/a

Lyn Ortega - CSUF

n/a

Mary Balmages - SCC

n/a

Michael Servin - RioRunners

n/a

Michael McHan - Grossmont

I'll try to keep this as brief and simple as possible.

For Parliamentary Debate:

  • Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
  • Structure, structure, structure.
  • The PMC speech should contain a clear and fair resolutional analysis. Be very clear when providing the voting criterion (V/C) and articulating how the judge should weigh the round. *Remember, if the Gov. team fails to offer a V/C then the Opp. has the right to do so for them.
  • Please make sure you are signposting and clearly labeling your arguments.
  • Not a fan of Ks.
  • Okay with Ts, but not when levied as a strategy to take up time.
  • Both sides should have clear, numbered voters in their final speeches. Don't just summarize existing arguments but TELL me why you should get my vote.
  • Ultimately, I like to hear a clean debate, with ample clash, and arguments properly linked and warranted.

For IPDA Debate:

Since IPDA was created for a lay audience it is important that debaters keep their cases as simple and clear as possible.

  • Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments. I won't accept arguments I know to be blatantly false, even if your competitor doesn't call you on your BS.
  • Very important to speak with a clear and calm pace.
  • Signposting and labeling your arguments is a necessity.
  • Please do not get too fancy with the voting criterion.
  • Avoid technical debate jargon.
  • Offer numbered voters (reasons why you won the debate) in final speeches.
  • Be kind and respectful to each other.
  • Smile and have fun!

For other Speaking Events:

  • One of the elements I notice first is delivery - I tend to focus first on verbal and nonverbal variety, then command of gestures, then how well you engage your audience (if appropriate for your speech).
  • Second, content. How well does your content flow, how organized is it, and how much do you enjoy /belief what you are saying.
  • Third, have fun and entertain me! Typically, at any given tournament, I am observing 10-20 debates/speeches, and I like to be entertained by what I am judging. Have fun!

If you have questions about something that was not mentioned in my judging philosophy please do not hesitate to ask me before the round begins!

Nicholas Thomas - CSU San Marcos

n/a

Nichole Barta - LACC

n/a

Phoebe Melikidse - COC

I welcome any style for debate so long as your argument is clear and structured. Good delivery is also a plus, so speaking loudly, at an appropriate tempo, and demonstrating some enthusiasm for your argument.

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.

Rhiannon Lewis - CSULB

I am primarily a speech judge, however I can and will flow the debate. I teach public speaking and argumentation, so I like when you speak with clarity and provide clear warrants for your claims. Explain to me why your argument is stronger than your opponents'. Don't mumble, and don't speed. It is your job to tell me who I should vote for and why. If you choose to not engage with certain arguments, please make sure you make it clear to me why you are doing so. Organization and verbal signposting will make my job easier too, and it is your job as the speaker to ensure I understand you.

Please time yourselves, and have fun!

Riese Chacon - Cerritos

n/a

Robert Montgomery - CSUF

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

Background: I am the Director of Forensics at Grossmont College, for the past 30 years. I have been judging and coaching Parli for at least 20 years, and coaching and judging IPDA for about 10 years, or since southern California started competing in this event. I am not an NFA/LD coach or judge.

Educational Activity: I believe that debate is an educational activity that teaches some very important skills from the areas of argumentation and public speaking. I want to hear clear, well structured, arguments. I want the speaker to label their points/sign posting throughout. I need a road map, throughout the speech, not just at the top of the speech. I want to hear arguments that have claims, with reasoning/evidence. I still believe that this is a speaking event, and using some clear structure to you debate is important to me.

Regional Differences: At a state or national tournament, I know that there are different terms/jargon that have developed from individual regions. Therefore, dont assume that everyone should know the same terms. If you use a term, quickly explain it, the first time you use it. I welcome an opposing team to ask the other team for explanations of their terms. I do not expect that team to respond with something like, everyone should know this term. If that is true, give us the definition. I see far too many debaters misusing and miscommunication about jargon.

Topicality/Spreading/Ks: Of course, I expect to occasionally hear a topicality argument, when warranted. I dont want to hear a kritik for the sake of using it, or because you have nothing else to offer. However, if warranted, I may be open to one.

I believe there is no place for spreading/speed in Parli or IPDA. Everyone who continues to encourage or allow spreading is encouraging poor communication skills, defeating the purpose of Parli/IPDA debate. It isnt about my ability to flow, it is about your ability to communicate logical, argumentation to any audience.

During rebuttals I am looking for very clear voters, to tell me why your team wins the debate.

IPDA specifically: I have watched the progression from CEDA to Parli and now IPDA. I would like judges to follow the guidelines for IPDA, which says that there should be lay judges for IPDA. This means that even though I am a Parli judge, I should listen without expecting to hear jargon. I do think a well structure speech is required to be successful.

Having said all that, I love judging Parli debates. I am excited to hear your well structured, lively, debates.

Shiloh Tamir - SD Mesa

1. Logical Argumentation: I prioritize clear and logical reasoning over jargon-heavy rhetoric. Arguments should be accessible and straightforward, allowing for a fair assessment based on their merit rather than specialized terminology. 2. Rejection of Spreading: I do not tolerate spreading. Speeches should be delivered at a pace that allows for comprehension and engagement. Clarity is key; if I cannot understand your argument, I cannot evaluate it. 3. Emotional Appeals: While emotional appeals can have their place in debate, I believe that reliance on themsuch as yelling or other high-energy tacticsindicates a weakness in logical argumentation. If you resort to these tactics, it suggests that your case lacks sufficient evidence or reasoning to stand on its own. 4. Fairness and Respect: I expect all participants to treat each other with respect and to engage in a fair and constructive manner. Debate should foster a positive environment for exchanging ideas.

Sophia Sullivan - SD Mesa

  • No spreading. Talk at a normal rate; what you would have a conversation in.
  • Stay organized and signpost. I need to know where you are on the flow.
  • I only have NPDA experience, for IPDA or NFA I am a lay judge.
  • I am good with procedural arguments but please run them correctly.
  • Have fun and be nice to each other, you are all learning and meant to be here.

Sophia Kaplan - SD Mesa

n/a

Trajan McGlathery - SD Mesa

A novice judge with a year of debate circuit experience. Format and structure are the keys to my vote. Im open to all arguments as long as it is structured and makes sense, assume I know nothing about any topic and spoon feed me the information I need for a topic.

Trish BrodakSilva - ELAC

n/a

Ty Garrett - SD Mesa

Hi and welcome to debate! I am a college student and not very strict. For my ballot just have good arguments to support your data. Your data is not enough to sway me one way or another. Please be ethical and fair to the other team. Most of all, HAVE FUN. Youre going to do amazing.

Tyler Ross - RioRunners

n/a

Zac Dybeck - CSU San Marcos

Background

Most of my experince is limited-prep and debate, I did high school debate for 2 years and IPDA for 3 years, I also do impromptu and extemp.

IPDA

I'm cool with off-time roadmaps before each speech, I will be keeping time but please time yourself for your own benefit.

I am not against technical debates in IPDA, I encourage clever/outside the box argumentation so long as you can deliver it clearly and convincingly.

I am not super interested in source/citation debates because IPDA doesn't have the ability to call for evidence during rounds. That being said however, you are welcome to question the crediblity or content of a source with your own reasons/evidence.

Policy rounds

If the aff does not present a plan in a policy round where the language of the res. calls for one, I will likely default to the negative. The aff isn't required to make an increibly specific plan, but at least a plan text that narrows down a topic with many possible policies down to a single one.