Judge Philosophies
Alejandro Hernandez - Cerritos
Overview
Specialized in debate but also done IEs. I done 3 years of parliamentary debate, 2.5 years of IPDA debate, 2 years of NFA LD debate, 2.5 years of extemp, and 0.5 years of impromptu
My judging style is mostly technical, and I am a flow judge (for all debates I dont flow cross-examination) I look for the following:
Structure
Crucial and important I want to see structure in your speeches whether it is your first or your 1000th debate round. Not only does it make me easier to understand your arguments, but also your opponents and the audience
Speed
I have a high tolerance to speed. Articulate and enunciate your words every time you present your speech even if you are speeding/spreading. One rule if your opponent shout clear or slow, you must slow down! Otherwise, I will not hesitate to vote you down for not making debate accessible to everyone, especially your opponent
Kritiks
Fine with it. If you are going to run a K, make sure it links with the case and that it has a framework, or else it will be hard to weigh the K against the aff. If you are running an aff K, have strong warrants of why the K aff is preferable than the original resolution it should relate the res at some point though
Topicality/Theory
Another great strategy to run as the negative. Have voters and warrants of why I should buy the T/theory shell. Make sure to prove abuse when running a T, otherwise it is a 99 percent chance that I wont buy it.
Counterplans
Another great strategy. Have warrants as to why the counterplan is preferable to the plan. Counterplans should be mutually exclusive otherwise it is not competitive and can do at the same time with the plan, known as a permutation
Value/fact rounds
Not a big fan of those types of debate but it is your round. For value rounds I want to see comparative analysis and impact calculus. For fact rounds I am mainly going to focus on the logic and the preponderance of evidence. Still build up your case and have warrants and give me voters of to why you win the debate (this is for all debate rounds also)
Decorum
Be on time no reason to arrive late. Grace period is usually 15 minutes for most tournaments so if you are very late, I will not hesitate to drop you
Delivery
Im fine with off time roadmaps and thank yous. Any type of delivery is fine but there are boundaries.
I understand that people sometimes get passionate about something that could have affected their personal life at least once, but I find it hard to believe that one can be passionate about every single topic out there. Please be nice to your opponent. No ad hominems. No frantic yelling or screaming at responses because it gives me the idea that your arguments are weak, and you resort to emotion to counterbalance the weak logic with your arguments. (Im going to sound like a hypocrite because I have done this before and I deeply regret it). If anyone does this, I am not going to hesitate dropping speaker points
Impacts and voters
Give me voters and why you should win the debate. No new arguments in rebuttals. If you are going for big impacts like nuclear war or the death of democracy, have strong links or else I wont buy it
Parliamentary debate specific
Im fine with partner communication but I only flow what the speaker says. Excessive partner communication will make me drop speaker points and lose credibility of your arguments.
Points of order call them when necessary do not over do it.
NFA LD specific
Favorite event to judge make sure you have your cards ready to go. If you do LD on paper, please bring a copy of your case. If you dont, I will ask you for some papers for me to take pictures of the case to write down my ballot. Other than that, I will default to stock issues per the NFA rules
IPDA specific
Fine with technical terms for IPDA
Speaker points
Will rank from 0-30 based on several factors including delivery, case strength, refutation, flow, and rebuttal strength. There are more to consider. I usually will give an average of 19-23 points
Overall, have fun may the best argument win
Alexia Daniels - ULV
n/a
Allie Foltz - SD Mesa
n/a
Alyssa Olaes - Palomar
n/a
Bianca Alcantara - Cypress College
n/a
Carlos Bonilla - Cal State LA
n/a
Cipriana Rodriguez - CSU San Marcos
n/a
Dia Hill - Palomar
n/a
Dylan Dorman - SD Mesa
n/a
Emily Pogosova - SCC
n/a
Frank Hernandez - Cypress College
n/a
Hugo Acevedo - CSULB
n/a
Jacob Blair - Cypress College
n/a
Jasmin Fathi - SD Mesa
n/a
Johnny Tapia - Cal State LA
n/a
Kathy Alvarez - SD Mesa
n/a
Kian Agheli - SD Mesa
n/a
London Lopez - Cypress College
n/a
Marcos Santos - Cal State LA
n/a
Max Hutchins - Palomar
n/a
Maya Srugo - SD Mesa
n/a
Nadalie Leon-Munoz - CSULB
n/a
Natan Schwartzman - SD Mesa
n/a
Senen Perez - Cal State LA
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
Valeria Salazar - Cal State LA
n/a
Vihaan Bhardwaj - SD Mesa
n/a
Vince Hernandez - ULV
n/a
Xander Hepburn - UCSB
n/a