Judge Philosophies
Adriana La Fuente - Cerritos
I value clear, organized argumentation that connects claims to evidence effectively and emphasizes logical impacts. Nonverbal cues matter to me strong eye contact, vocal variety, and confident body language help convey credibility and connect with the audience. I dont flow spreading; clarity and persuasion come first. In debate, I appreciate well-developed arguments with clear impacts, strong refutation, and respectful engagement. I strive to create a supportive judging environment that encourages growth, critical thinking, and effective communication.
Akacia White - SD Mesa
n/a
Alec Amador - Cypress College
n/a
Alisha Hassanali - UCLA
n/a
Annette Ruiz - ULV
n/a
Brion Case - SD Mesa
n/a
Brittany Roque - SCC
n/a
Christian Gutierrez - ULV
n/a
David Kish - Palomar
n/a
Destiny Lopez - Cerritos
n/a
Diego Cely - SD Mesa
n/a
Dron Nikam - OCC
n/a
Eve Dowdell - CSUF
n/a
Francisco Godinez - Cerritos
n/a
Gabrielle Hernandez - UCLA
n/a
Gohan Huynh - UCSB
n/a
Heart Belingon - SD Mesa
n/a
Izzy Brousseau - Palomar
n/a
Jaden Huynh - Cal State LA
n/a
Jadine Montanez - Grossmont
n/a
James Johnson - MSJC
n/a
Jasmine Wang - UCSB
n/a
Jayden White - SD Mesa
n/a
Jeff Samano - Fullerton College
n/a
Jett Hall - OCC
n/a
Joshua Lopez - RioRunners
n/a
Julian Sharkey - RioRunners
n/a
Kathy Alvarez - SD Mesa
n/a
Kendra Williams - MSJC
n/a
Keoni Carman - Chapman
n/a
Kyle Picar - SD Mesa
n/a
Landen Minor - RioRunners
n/a
Layla De Lara - ULV
n/a
Lily Bower-Moore - ULV
n/a
Lynzie Hinman - Fullerton College
n/a
Malia Wilke - SD Mesa
n/a
Mason Shaff - OCC
n/a
Max Hutchins - Palomar
n/a
Max Libudziewski - OCC
n/a
Maya Crane - Cerritos
n/a
Miguel Carretero - UCLA
n/a
Natalie Hertogh - CSUF
n/a
Nick Matthews - Cerritos
Hello! I am the DOF 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 national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate 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 faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will 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 mostly ran 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, ... - In policy rounds, 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.
- Parli: 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.
I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).
Nicolina Deschamps - Fullerton College
n/a
Racheal Shepard - Palomar
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.
Rita Rafael - SCC
Spreading is antithetical to education and will greatly impact how I judge the round. Make logical arguments and practice good storytelling. Do the thinking for your audience, this is key! It should be obvious how you reached your conclusions.
Ryan Chamberlain - Cerritos
n/a
SarahAnn Renstrom - SD Mesa
n/a
Sophia Lepari - Grossmont
n/a
Tanner Mejia - Palomar
n/a
Taz Hellman - Chapman
I believe debate no matter the form should be educational and respectful at its core. This is an academic event and should be treated as such.
Regardless of the type of debate I am watching, I do not like speed, rudeness, unnecessary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you are spreading please keep in mind that I also have to be able to flow in order to properly judge. If you speak so fast that I cannot then I will just stop flowing.
Dont try to read my facial expressions on how you're doing in debate, not even I am aware of half of my expressions and it could mean literally anything. Stay confident in yourself and you will do great.
I also believe in the rightful distinction between debate events. IPDA is to be accessible to the lay audience while Parli has the room to be more technical. I appreciate signposting/good structure so if you do that I will be a very happy judge!
I will vote solely based on what is said and what is on the flow. I will not make inferences that are not stated if it takes a lot of jumps in logic. I do flow Cross-ex and Points of Information as I believe they are just as much a part of debate as anything else when it comes to the flow.
Feel free to ask any neccesary questions before the round.
Trish BrodakSilva - ELAC
n/a
Valeria Gomez Castellanos - UCSB
n/a
Victor Estrada - OCC
n/a
Vihaan Bhardwaj - SD Mesa
TLDR: I love debate. Make me love it more by having great logic, strategic refutations, and being yourself. I will evaluate arguments to the fullest extent possible; my decisions will be meticulous, fair, and guided by both common sense and technical knowledge of debate.
Debate experience
2 years competing in Open Parli with San Diego Mesa College.
- Semifinalist at the 2026 International Forensics Association Tournament
- Bronze at national tournament 2026 Phi Rho Pi
Philosophy
I am quasi tabula-rasa. This means that before I enter the debate, I am leaving at the door all forms of bias, political persuasion, and opinions that I otherwise may carry. However, that does not mean I will leave my knowledge of current events at the door. That is to say, if I recognize any false representations of events, sources, or information, I will penalize.
Speaker points
I do not directly look at delivery and speed when deciding which team wins the round. I look at the arguments. Of course, speaking well will earn you high speaker points and might indirectly influence my decision by making your arguments clearer. That said, I am very fond of strategic decision-making in debate and will reward excellent strategy as much as great delivery when deciding speaker points.
A few other notes:
- Be as technical or simple as you want to, I am flexible
- ARTICULATE: dont just say theyre wrong, explain why theyre wrong
- Be fun, I am literally so close to being in your shoes as a novice debater you do not need to be overly formal in front of me. Just be yourself. Im not the biggest fan of being contrived to fit superficial conventions like over-formality and friendliness.
- Facial expressions: my face is expressive but I will try to not give away everything I am thinking while you speak. That said, upon hearing a good argument, I will happily nod or knock.
- Make this round educational, not just favorable to your side. If an argument you made before completely falls apart, dont artificially try to make it sound good. Be honest. Drop arguments that are not contributing to the education of the round and hit harder on the ones that are
Wayne Bergeron - Cerritos
n/a
Xasive Espinoza - UCLA
n/a
Zaniya Jones - SD Mesa
n/a