Judge Philosophies

Aadil Jadwet -- Hired Judges

n/a

Aaliyah King -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Abdullah Salehuddin -- California State University, Long Beach

n/a

Aimee Newton -- College of the Canyons

n/a

Alexander Cadena -- Rio Hondo Community College

Background Information:

I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. I have experience judging policy while I was in graduate school. This is my third year of coaching forensics. I enjoy the spirit of this event and I am hoping to do so for more years to come.

How I evaluate rounds:

I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like filled and completed arguments. Do you have Uniqueness, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? I would like Plan texts and CPs to be stated twice. In the rebuttals, tell me what arguments to vote on and why they have greater importance than your opponent's arguments.

If you are running a K, please state the Roll of the Ballot and Alternative twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. For the times when it is K v.s. K debates, (I will question my life choices) I will try to vote on the most articulated position that is flushed out in the rebuttals. I am not a fan of spread. If competitors ask how I feel about spread, I will say â??Its hurts my head.â?

Topicality â?? Theory â?? Procedurals, great! I expect all important aspect of the T-shell to be there. Do not expect me to fill in the â??blipsâ?? of your standards and impacts. Iâ??m not the biggest fan of multiple theory shells that get kicked in the block. Iâ??ve been persuaded by a compelling RVI against that tactic in the past. (They made pretty smart argument which had no response.)

Some other comments:

Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to â??win a ballot.â? If you donâ??t care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POIâ??s are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals. 

P.S. Flex-Time is NOT a designated CX period. There are still POI allowed in speech time, I am not a fan of this social norm where questions are only allowed in-between speeches! Also if you have time before your speeches, you should be pretty close to speaking by the time FLEX ends!


Alexis Aschacher -- Hired Judges

n/a

Alicia Batice -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Alicia Carpenter -- Hired Judges

n/a

Alissa Duong -- California State University, Long Beach

n/a

Alix Lopez -- Mt. San Antonio College

n/a

Allysen Charles -- Hired Judges

n/a

Alonzo Eldridge -- Hired Judges

n/a

Alyson Escalante -- El Camino College

n/a

Alyssa Mullins -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Amy Hileman -- Northern Virginia Community College

n/a

Andrea Ruiz -- California State University Fullerton

n/a

Andy Kyle -- Point Loma Nazarene University

n/a

Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

n/a

Anthony Violissi -- Northern Arizona University

n/a

Arely Venegas -- Hired Judges

n/a

Arthur Valenzuela -- Los Angeles Valley College

n/a

Ashley Nuckels Cuevas -- San Diego State University

Pronouns: She/Her/Hers

TW: Suicide, Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Rape

Overview/ TLDR: I am a flow critic and debate is a game but we should be doing all that we can to make the space accessible to all participants. Clearly state how I should evaluate arguments and I will do that; I do default to competing interpretations and prefer high Probability, low Magnitude and Proximity impacts to high Magnitude and low Probability.�  All advocacy, criteria/ROB, and procedural texts should be repeated for clarity in the round.� 

Speed: I can keep up and will let you know to be more clear if I need it. If your opponents are unable to engage in speed please be accommodating.� 

Procedurals: I really like procedural debate. I enjoy specific interpretations and counterinterps (please repeat these since they are usually pretty important). I need articulated abuse if using an abuse paradigm but I default to a competing interpretations paradigm if not otherwise instructed.� 

K's: Run them, have fun, and give me a clear FW, ROB, ALT, and ALT solvency. I prefer K's that have specific link scenarios to the debate round instead of just generic ones. Perms should be repeated so that I can get them down correctly.� 

Theory: Like I said before, this is your game, tell me how to evaluate the round and I will operate within those parameters. I generally believe that Conditional Arguments are good but I will not do the work for you on the warrant level.

Pet Peeves: Citing a theory or theorist and expecting everyone to know what you are talking about.� 




Ashlyn Guidetti -- Hired Judges

n/a

Averie Vockel -- University of Utah

n/a

Ayden Loeffler -- Irvine Valley College

  THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and therefore debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this third priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you're buying the theory here's this disad." 

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just do it because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

If you are an older debater with lots of experience and debating a team with less experience, I expect you to know that speed doesn't win rounds. The teams that your speed drills will give you an edge over are teams that you could have beat going at their pace. Additionally, speed good arguments being weaponized as reasons to make a grab at the ballot are not compelling to me and I'll write on your ballot that you're a bully.

For the most part, I can handle your speed. Since my time debating at Long Beach I've not had an issue in any round over speed but I have CLEARed people. I will verbally notify debaters if I can't keep up.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. An older  It could just be a difference in meta between when I debated and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

As a debater I read a fair amount of Derrida and Marx. As a student I spent much of my time writing on Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Baudrillard and most of the writers in the existentialism grab bag of philosophers. If  you aren't reading direct copy pastes out of the Long Beach files that Fletcher sent around, it would probably be to your benefit to assume that you know more than I about the inspiration for the position you're reading.

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Free Stuff - If you don't have access to files from the old Long Beach Dropbox and would like them, tell me after round and I'll send them to you. Many teams have read positions from this collection of files in front of me, which I don't suggest doing (as they're old and other teams have access to them) however, they're great learning tools.


Bailey Porras -- Hired Judges

n/a

Barrett Kocher -- Hired Judges

n/a

Beau Koren -- Hired Judges

n/a

Benjamin Lange -- Concordia University Irvine

 

Bill Neesen -- Irvine Valley College

n/a

Brenna Thomale -- California Baptist University

n/a

Brianna Seidler -- Point Loma Nazarene University

n/a

Brigitte Chavez -- Northern Virginia Community College

n/a

Britney Thomas -- California Baptist University

n/a

Britney Tempelton -- Hired Judges

n/a

Brittany Hubble -- El Camino College

 

BG:

I competed in debate for El Camino College for 2 years from 2013-2015 and I have been coaching parli for El Camino since. While I attended many CC tournaments, I also competed at several 4-year tournaments including NPDA and NPTE. My partner and I ran all types of arguments in debate (policy, critical affs, kritiks, etc.), but typically leaned towards policy debate. However, you are welcome to debate any way you like, but you should be prepared to justify your strategy if it is called into question. I tend to favor the strategy that is the smartest, most warranted and best for winning that round. 

Impacts:

You should have them! I believe it is your job to tell me which impacts should carry the most weight in the round and why. I have no problem voting on a nuclear war or economic collapse scenario as long as you have a clear warranted story to explain how you get there. I am also not opposed to you asking me to prefer systemic impacts. It is really up to you, but I will usually default to net benefits and evaluate the impacts using timeframe, probability and magnitude unless I am told otherwise. I really really like impact calc and think it is a necessary component to winning a debate. 

Case Debate:

I really enjoy the case debate and I really dislike debates where the aff is never discussed. You should engage with the aff no matter what you are running on the neg. Case turns and offense on case are awesome. I am not opposed to voting on 8 minutes of case out of the LO…in fact this is a great strategy for refuting both policy and critical affs when done well. 

Disadvantages:

Love them. Case specific disads with nuanced internal link stories are great. Please make sure they are not linear, as I will have a low threshold for voting on the aff outweighing on probability. 

Counterplans:

Another excellent negative strategy. There should be a net benefit to the CP, competitiveness and it should solve the aff. Topical counterplans are fine. PICs are fine but I am also open to hearing why PICs or other types of counterplans are bad. Again, you just need to justify your strategy and win why it is a good idea. 

Conditionality:

I am not a fan of multiple conditional advocacies but you can read them if you want. In general, I prefer unconditional advocacies and have no problem voting on condo bad. However, if you win the condo debate I will still vote for you and wont punish you for it. 

Kritiks:

I think there are a lot of rounds where the K is the best and sometimes only good negative strategy. However, I prefer case/topic specific links and arguments other than “they used the state.” I am not saying this can’t be a link, but you should probably have more compelling ones. I also really like well-warranted solvency that is specific to your method/alternative. You should be well versed in the lit supporting your arguments. I don’t like people blurting out tags and then having no idea how to explain them. I think you should call people out on this and use it as offense against them. You should also not assume that I have read the lit on your K and know all of the terms you are using. You are not doing yourself any good by confusing both your opponents and me. Most of this applies to the K on the aff as well. I prefer critical affs that defend the topic or use the topic as a springboard for discussion. I will vote on affs that do not depend the topic, but I will also entertain arguments that say you should. 

Identity Arguments:

With the increase in identity arguments being proposed in debate, there is something you should know. While I understand their purpose and ability to be an avenue for individuals to promote advocacy, I find them difficult to evaluate and I am probably not the judge for you. Past experiences debating them have produced triggering memories and force me to include a bias when deciding rounds. I have been in a round where debate became an unsafe space and I would hate to have to adjudicate a round that would recreate that for another individual. 

Theory:

I think theory is a great tool for both the aff and neg to secure ground in the debate and explain why certain arguments should be excluded from a debate. Your argument should have impacts! Don’t just say it is bad for education or fairness then move on. You should also have counterinterps, reasons to prefer, offense, etc. against theory to win. 

Speed

Speed is fine but please be clear. I don’t see how it is beneficial for making arguments that only your partner can hear and understand. I also believe the round should be accessible and you should respect a clear. There is nothing impressive about being a bully and spreading someone out of a round after they have repeatedly asked you to slow down. You should probably be able to win without it. Otherwise, I should have no problem flowing you and think speed should be used as a tool to make a lot of good arguments. 

Defending the Topic:

Whether or not you choose to defend the topic is up to you. I think you should provide substantial justifications for why you should be required to defend the topic. I will not drop a team for choosing not defend the topics, as I feel the debate space is yours to decide how to manage. However, I believe there are valid arguments to be made why defending the topic is important and how abandoning the topic can be bad. I find it best when negative teams engage with the affirmative in addition to justifying why they should defend the topic. I have both voted for and against teams on framework as well. You really just need to win the argument. 

Speaker Points:

If you can do the above well, you will probably receive good speaker points from me. Being new to judging and understanding that speaker points can impact you in a tournament in ways other than speaker awards, I would say that I am currently on the more generous side of awarding speaker points. That is not to say I just hand out 30s or will not tank your points for being a jerk. I have a very low tolerance for offensive rhetoric or rudeness in rounds. 

Miscellaneous:

Be organized and sign post. Don’t assume you want me to apply arguments in specific places without being told to. I have pretty apparent nonverbals and you can usually tell if I think your argument is bad. You should probably use that to your advantage and move on. Read plan texts, advocacies, interpretations, counterinterps, role of the ballots, etc. twice and give a copy to your opponents if they want one. I prefer policy debate over value debate and think you can discuss the same arguments in a policy round more effectively. Overall, I think you should have fun with the debate and make it fun for everyone. I am open to answering questions to clarify anything or regarding specifics that may relate to your round. 

As flex time has been introduced, I am not particularly receptive to you asking for a copy of every interp, plan, ROB, etc. during speeches. This also means that you don't get to wait to start your flex until you get copies of whatever you want a copy of. Your flex starts immediately after the previous speech. I also don't think it is a particularly strong theoretical argument to claim that you should be handed these texts during the speech. This is parli not policy and you should be flowing these things. That is not to say I will not vote on theory that claims you should be granted these luxuries, but I believe making case arguments are a much better use of your time. 

I also don't really believe in RVIs especially on theory. 


Brooke Hinds -- Hired Judges

n/a

Caitlin Adornato -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Caitlin Culhane -- Hired Judges

n/a

Caitlyn Burford -- Northern Arizona University

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)

She/her are my pronouns.


Update: K's with bomb links are my love language.  K's with horrible links make me want to cry.


Update #2: I like learning new things.  If I can learn something new about how the world works after leaving a debate I am stooooooooked!


Background:

 

This is my ninth year judging and coaching debate, and I spent four years competing in college. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.

 

Specific Inquiries

 

 

1.         General Overview 

I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics.  This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a critique, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with.  In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many implications about state power and authority as a critique of the state.  The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act.  Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there.  Thus, framework is imperative.  I’ll get there shortly.  You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point.  (a.k.a Give me a framework with your poetry!). 

 

2.        Framework 

This often ends up as the most important part of a lot of debates. If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc.  This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze.  In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round.  Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage.  If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate.  If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than impacts) are to your case.

 

3.         Theory

            It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too.  Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them.  If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”.  So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.

 

4.         Counterplan Debate

            This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition.  That is for you to set up and decide in the debate.   I have voted on PICS good, PICS bad, so on and so forth. That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well.  Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.

 

5.         Round Evaluation

            Again, framework is important.  Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team. (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.)  If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case.  I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.  

            A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument.  A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact.  (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome.  If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story.

 

6.         Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things

            I’m fine with speed.  Don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down, please do.  It’s your round!  Do what you want!


Carl Trigilio -- Concordia University Irvine

 

Carly Daste -- Hired Judges

n/a

Carol Damgen -- Mt. San Jacinto College

n/a

Chathi Anderson -- Irvine Valley College

 

Chris Dreifus -- Hired Judges

n/a

Christiaan Pipion -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Christine Chragian -- Hired Judges

n/a

Claire Crossman -- Concordia University Irvine

 

Coco Shapiro -- Hired Judges

n/a

Collette Blumer -- California State University Fullerton

n/a

Daniel Zaragoza -- Point Loma Nazarene University

 

Daniela Vasquez -- Azusa Pacific University

n/a

Danny Cantrell -- Mt. San Antonio College

Testing 123


Das Nugent-Odasso -- San Diego Mesa College

n/a

Dawson Khoury -- Mt. San Antonio College

� 

DeRod Taylor -- East Los Angeles College

n/a

Deven Cooper -- California State University, Long Beach

n/a

Dinnett Hermosillo -- Compton College

n/a

Dorri Mang -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Dylan Henteieff -- Hired Judges

n/a

Eddie Leonardo -- Hired Judges

n/a

Elin Olausson -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Elle Baez -- Point Loma Nazarene University

n/a

Emil Avaresian -- Hired Judges

n/a

Faith Roberts -- Hired Judges

n/a

Faith Guidetti -- Hired Judges

n/a

Francesca Bishop -- El Camino College

My background: I competed in CEDA for 3 years; I have coached parli for about 20 and NFA-LD for 10.  

I had my years of debating; it is now your turn. There are lots of things I believe about debate and the world in general, but I try not to bring them into the round. Thus, if you tell me something, I write it down and assume it true unless it is refuted. That means that you can lose a round if you drop one little argument, though it's unlikely unless your opponents blow it up, but if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework argument (where I look first) it could be bad. Although I try to be tabula rasa, there are a couple of exceptions: One is if you tell me to use my ballot as a tool in any way, or ask me to vote on real world impacts. I see this as a demand for intervention based on what I actually believe, therefore I may not vote on arguments that have "won."  A second exception is if you tell me something that I know to be untrue--so please don't guess or make stuff up. 

Because I try to base my decision based solely on arguments that are made in the round, I don't assume anything. Therefore, you need to tell me why something matters. For example, don't expect me to assume climate change is happening or that it's bad, or for that matter, that nuclear war is bad. Likewise, you don't have to run only conventionally believed positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or if they are "true." In general, know that I don't believe that debate is a search for the truth; I believe it is a game.  As when you play all games, you should have fun!!!



Ged Valenzeula -- Point Loma Nazarene University

Debate is a game that should be played, so play it the best you can.  By default I assume net benefits analysis weighed through timeframe, magnitude, and probability but you can honestly run whatever you are most comfortable with, so long as you give clear justification for your method and/or weighing mechanisms within the framework. Hopefully the following information allows for a more concise and enjoyable debate for everyone.

DAs, CPs, advantages:

Run them or kick them

On criticisms:

I love critical theory but please don't assume that I already know the thesis of your argument. In general, please articulate: what does the alt do, and what does a post-alt world look like?  If you are indicting the debate space or claiming real-world solvency, it is also imperative to have explanations of how the speech act of the kritik functions to affect the classroom and competitors.  Demonstrate that you know how to apply these arguments and I’m more likely to give good speaks and the ballot to you.  

*Affs, when responding to criticisms, blipping out "perm - do both" or "do plan and all mutually exclusive parts of the K" or other non-contextualized responses is not something I can vote on.  You have to explain to me how the perm functions before garnering any sort of offense/net benefit.  Executing both this and framework arguments effectively will be very strong.

*Also affs, if you are running a critical affirmative, please demonstrate how the position relates to the topic to allow for competitive equity.   Criticisms without links will lose to a perm anyways (Veal 2017).

On procedurals/theory:

I try not to presume any theory argumentation; things like condo bad/good only matter when teams bring it up.  That being said, I enjoy procedural debate, especially when it revolves around creative and educational interps.  

When it comes to T, please demonstrate articulated abuse, potential abuse is not something that I can vote on.  I will default to a competing interpretations paradigm if the topicality is not resolved.  Make offensive theory arguments with “impact” scenarios as to how fairness and education are undermined by that debate theory practice/argument and I’m pretty likely to vote there.

On reverse voting issues: if you want to leverage one, go hard and be confident.  This also means allocating less time to answering them if they are bad/intended as a time suck.  I am not necessarily predisposed against RVIs and I believe that there are some legitimate reasons for voting on them, such as checking against in-round exclusion as well as fostering better education about the resolution.  Make those arguments, though.

Speaker points:

Speaks start at 27.5 and can go up or down depending on the round (will never go below 25 though, unless something really terrible happens).  Some things that would dock your speaks include excessive POOs, running Wilderson as a non-black individual, using speed to exclude the other team, impact turning morally repugnant things like genocide/rape/racism/etc.  Don't be a jerk. Additionally, please don't group responses to arguments that require more nuanced answers and expect me to do the work, articulating your arguments is part of your responsibilities as debaters and not mine as critic and your performance will suffer.

Ways to improve speaks would be clear taglining, good args, giving me a text of your plan/CP/alt (though you should be doing that anyways), (!!) having an effective collapse (line-by-line rebuttals are a strategically bad decision anyways).  Higher speaks if it’s a gutsy collapse, but don’t take this to mean purposely kicking legitimately good offense in the rebuttals in order to get better speaks.  Just go for where you think you are winning and why they are voting issues.

I reserve the right to deviate from my judging philosophy at any time.  Though this serves as a reliable framework for evaluating debates, there are always exceptions to the rule and opportunities for me to grow as a critic that will prompt me to shift my paradigm.


Genavieve Faherty -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Giselle Jahangiri -- Concordia University Irvine

n/a

Gisselle Sanabriga -- Santa Monica College


Golsa Jaberi -- Hired Judges

n/a

Gonzala Secaira -- Claremont Colleges

n/a

Grace Laidlaw -- Grand Canyon University


Grant Tovmasian -- Rio Hondo Community College

The most important criteria for me is fairness. I will avoid interceding on any one's behalf up to a point.  Please remember that although I approach the round as impartial as I can, that does not negate the truth, I still am aware which country I live in and who is the president and killing puppies is wrong (also kicking them, and just violence in general, I frown upon)     

I expect all debaters to remain cordial and professional throughout the round. The decorum is important so as not to isolate or offend any student. Debate albeit adversarial in nature should be based on arguments and not a personal attack and as such, each student should perceive this as a safe place to express ideas and arguments. I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedural that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis. As such I am a believer that presentation and sound argumentation is critical towards establishing one's position.  DA vs Advantages. CP vs Plan are all sound strategies and I hope students will use them.  If you are running a CP please make sure to explain its status, especially if you are to claim dispositional (EXPLAIN) If permutation can happen in the real world it can happen in a debate round. Please call Points of Order and 95% of the time I will respond with (point well taken, point not well taken) That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete. Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD.        

I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round. Critics, i.e. K are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important than whatever else is happening and is directly connected to either the actions of the other team or resolution in it of itself. As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything. For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation. 

I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates. Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)           


Greg Gorham -- Grand Canyon University


Hannah Haghighat -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Hazel Palencia -- Hired Judges

n/a

Helena Ong -- Claremont Colleges

n/a

IJ Sanda -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Isaac Pang -- El Camino College

n/a

Isaiah Salgado -- Fullerton College

n/a

Isaiah Washington -- California Baptist University

n/a

Israel Sandoval -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Jack Bramlett -- California Baptist University

n/a

Jaclyn Krynsky -- Hired Judges

n/a

Jacqueline Yu -- California State University Fullerton

n/a

Jake Meany -- Claremont Colleges

n/a

James Depersis -- Hired Judges

n/a

Jamie Roberts -- Hired Judges

n/a

Jamie Whittington-Studer -- California State University, Los Angeles


Janay Bombino -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Janiel Victorino -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Jared Kubicka-Miller -- Santiago Canyon College

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. 


Jasmine Hernandez -- Santa Monica College


Jasmine McLeod -- Mt. San Antonio College

� 

Jason Jordan -- University of Utah

*I have fairly significant hearing loss. This is almost never a problem when judging debates. This also doesn't mean you should yell at me during your speech, that won't help. If I can't understand the words you're saying, I will give a clear verbal prompt to let you know what you need to change for me to understand you (ex: 'clear,' 'louder,' 'slow down,' or 'hey aff stop talking so loud so that I can hear the MO please'). If I don't prompt you to the contrary, I can understand the words you're saying just fine. � 

*make arguments, tell me how to evaluate these arguments, and compare these arguments to the other teams arguments and methods of evaluating arguments. I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to place me within. I have very few, if any, normative beliefs about what debate should look like and/or â??be.â??� 


*Unless I am told to do otherwise, on all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.



Jedi Curva -- East Los Angeles College

n/a

Jen Montgomery -- California State University Fullerton

n/a

Jenise Wong -- Santa Monica College


Jhovanni Diaz -- Hired Judges

n/a

Jimmy Gomez -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Joe Sindicich -- California State University Fullerton

n/a

Joe Faina -- Los Angeles Valley College

n/a

Joe Anderson -- East Los Angeles College

n/a

John Cho -- Irvine Valley College

 

Jonas LeBarillec -- El Camino College

n/a

Jonathan Veal -- Point Loma Nazarene University

  
  • Be cool to your opponents.

  • Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked.

  • I evaluate theory.

  • Policy is cool I guess.

  • K’s are great if the alt/advocacy has some sort of methodology/solvency.

  • I tend to hack out for uniqueness evaluation and warrants.

  • Speed is fine as long as your opponents and I can understand you and are able to participate.

  • Meh, have fun.


Jonathan Delaplane -- Hired Judges

n/a

Jose Mejia -- California Baptist University

n/a

Jose Oyuela -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Joseph Evans -- El Camino College

  About me:I have been involved in forensics for over 13 years including 7 years of coaching. I have debated in High School, College and I am now currently a full-time professor and Director of Debate at El Camino College. I view debate as a game of argument and impact prioritization. Thus, I believe that any method of debate is viable when used as a strategic ploy to win. I will try to list my views on the major themes within debate. Please feel free to ask me for clarification before the round!.   

Framework/Role of the Ballot:  I will evaluate and weigh the round through any framework that the Aff or Neg presents to me. I have no predisposition towards one specific FW because all frameworks can either be strategic or not depending on how it’s debated. In terms of evaluating competing FWs, I will only make my decision on how each are warranted and impacted out in round and will never insert my own beliefs. In terms of the ROB, I will weigh the ROB through the FW presented and if it’s not contested, this will frame how I evaluate the rest of the round.  If no one tells me how to frame the round, I tend to fall back to evaluating the round through the lens of utilitarianism (net benefits). When impacting out why you win a policy debate, please frame your impacts through lenses like timeframe, magnitude, probability, reversibility. 

TLDR: Framework is important! You win the framework if you provide me clear warranted arguments for your position, and impact out why your framework is best.        

Theory: I will evaluate theoretical positions the same as others. The interpretation will frame how I evaluate the position. You must have a clear description of how the debate round should have been constructed. Additionally, I will evaluate the interp/counter-interp debate based on the standards/impacts presented.  I don’t have any preference in regards reasonability vs. competing interps you must justify why I should frame theory through either. If a teams decides to kick out of the position, I usually don't hold it against them (unless there is conceded offense). 

Counter Plans/Alts/Perms: I view counterplans or alternatives as a test of competition against the affirmative’s advocacy. I believe that counterplans/alts can compete based on impact prioritization, functional competition, or (sigh) textual competitiveness. I have no predisposition towards one type of competition. Teams must justify why I should vote on the competitiveness or lack of in the CP or Alt debate. In terms of the perm debate, perms also tests of the competitiveness of the counter advocacy. In order to win the perm debate you need to justify and impact out why it outweighs the CP or alt. I am also open to theoretical reasons why the CP/ALT or Perm should be rejected in the round. 

Speed: Go as fast as you want but please be clear! I have judged NPTE/NPDA finals and/or semi-finals the last 3 of 4 years so I will be able to keep up. However, if you are unclear, I will give you non-verbals or yell “clear”. My priority is getting everything you say on my flow so sacrificing clarity for speed is not advisable. Additionally, I have voted on speed arguments a few times when teams use speed as a bullying or ableist technique. So be conscious of how you use speed within the round. If you can beat a team without going fast, it’s a win-win for both teams. You get the W and the other team has an educational/ teaching moment.  

Kritical Arguments: I believe that any augment that is present is a viable way to win. Kritical arguments fall into that category. I am well versed in most critical arguments, but I am not by any means an expert on critical theory. Therefore, if you are running something new or obscure, don’t assume I understand the literature.  Regardless of the K, I will listen how your frame, impact and weight the FW and Alt/Alt solvency. Additionally, 


Josh Vannoy -- Grand Canyon University

Joshua Vannoy â?? Grand Canyon University


Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate.


General:


Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make. I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my third year as a judge.


- One question should be answered during each constructive.


- If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much. (That means I will want to see more specific arguments and a deeper level of understanding and without either I will have a less likely chance of voting for you)


- Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner or talk louder then the other team.


- Be friendly!


Theory:


Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I wonâ??t be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for â??you must discloseâ? arguments.


Case:


If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say â??povertyâ? without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.


Performance:


So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not â??performâ? anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor or I will have to intervene for the safety of everyone in the room.


The K:


When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All Kâ??s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.


Non-topical Affirmatives:


After two years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.


CP Theory:


Is condo bad? Probablyâ?¦ Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate)


Never run delay.


50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.


Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision.


Permutations:


I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 â?? 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3 â?? 8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DAâ??s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.


Speaker Points:


I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 â?? 29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper masculine a performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.


Joy Bautista -- Cerritos College

n/a

Julia Leslie -- Irvine Valley College

 

Julia Shotwell -- Point Loma Nazarene University

 

Kaitlyn Carpenter -- Moorpark College

n/a

Kaylin Mattner -- Hired Judges

n/a

Kaylin Robinson -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

n/a

Kiefer Storrer -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

Competed 4 years high school Policy, 4 years college parli. Took a year off, judged, then helped coach a comprehensive program in Grad School. Currently in my 2nd year of head coaching, 3rd year of professional coaching. I think debate is whatever you want to make it. It can be a game or a really good platform of advocacy, so I'm pretty supportive of like, inclusive arguments, theory, projects, etc. Speed is fine but especially in Parli give me clear tag lines. You don't need to read DAs to prove abuse on procedurals, just explain to me args you missed out on. Umm. Don't kick offense, please. I like clash and impact calc unless you are warranting out other places I should be specifically voting. Good luck, have fun; don't be a dick. 


Kieran Geralde -- Hired Judges

n/a

Kureysha Abdulkadir -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Kyla Wroten -- Santa Monica College


Kyle Duffy -- College of the Canyons

n/a

Kyle Rolda -- Hired Judges

n/a

Kyle Graziane -- Hired Judges

n/a

Li-Ren Chang -- El Camino College

 

Linda Hernandez-Mendoza -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Lori Gold -- Hired Judges

n/a

Luis Peneda -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Mackenzie DeMasters -- Hired Judges

n/a

Marcos Santos -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Mark Dorrough -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Mark Schmutzler -- California State University, Long Beach

n/a

Martin Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College

� 

Matt Grisat -- Rio Hondo Community College

 

Matt Kazden -- Hired Judges

n/a

Mattan Pesso -- Hired Judges

n/a

Megan Lutton -- Hired Judges

n/a

Melissa Moreno -- Mt. San Jacinto College

n/a

Michael Starzynski -- Santiago Canyon College


Michael Middleton -- University of Utah

A Quotation:

â??The present situation is highly discouragingâ? â??Gilles Deleuze & Felix Guattari

A Haiku:

Debate is Awesome

Judging Makes Me Cry Softly

Do I weep in vain?

Some things to consider (when debating in front of me):

10.� � I DO NOT support speed as a tool of exclusion

9.� � � � I DO NOT like deciding for myself what is the most important thing in the round or how to evaluate the competing arguments; You should do this for me.� � You will like it less if you donâ??t. On the other hand, I will like it more.

8.� � � � I DO like well-structured debates. I also like interesting structures.

7.� � � � I DO like creative interpretations; I DO NOT like when you donâ??t explain/provide a rationale for why I your interpretation makes for a productive/rewarding/interesting/good debate.

6.� � � � I DO NOT like nor understand potential abuse arguments; I DO like and reward teams that demonstrate compellingly that the quality of the debate has been compromised by an interpretive choice made by the other team.� 

5.� � � � I DO NOT vote for any given argument or against any given type of argument.� � Run whatever strategy you like; Be clear about your strategy.

4.� � � � I am a participant in the round also.� � While I make my best effort to vote on who is winning and losing the debate based on the arguments, I use speaker points to evaluate and highlight both excellent and poor behaviors, i.e. if you create a hostile environment, you get massively low speaker points.

3.� � � � Jargon does not equal argument. Nor does it equal a good time.

2.� � � Cross-application does not equal new argument. It doesnâ??t really equal anything.

1.� � � � Debate is not life.� � Losing a ballot will not steal your humanity.� � I tend to prefer rounds that demonstrate everyone in the room knows this.� 

0. Have Fun


Michael Pesso -- Hired Judges

n/a

Michael Gunner -- Hired Judges

n/a

Michael Gutierrez -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Michelle Yutuc -- Hired Judges

n/a

Mikayla Holzinger -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Mike Kalustian -- Los Angeles City College

n/a

Mikhail Gonzalez -- Hired Judges

n/a

Monique Gevorkian -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Morgan Wetmore -- Hired Judges

n/a

Nate Brown -- Santa Monica College

NPDA: I dislike spreading and speed in general. This event should develop desirable communication skills like any other. Speed is not good communication. I will not flow it and will vote against it. Eye contact is important. Debaters who mostly only look at their notes are not connecting with me and so their arguments are less likely to connect with me. Speaking points often matter for tie-breaking to elims, so I am serious about speaker points. Speaking behaviors that would not be tolerated in PERS will not be rewarded in NPDA. Speed, poor eye contact, distracting gestures, vocal fillers, are all examples of delivery behaviors that are too often tolerated in NPDA. Gov. of course needs to do a good prima facie case, which means clear and complete resolutional analysis, and stock issues in order to stay in the game. But Opp needs to catch Gov when they fail to do that. I will not do that job for the Opp. Everything is on-time. Road maps, introductions, ingratiations are all part of your time. Flex time is the opportunity for the next speaker to get ready. The next speech time will begin immediately at the end of the previous flex time. Partner communication should be minimal and should not interrupt the natural flow of a debate. The sitting partner should not bother the partner who is speaking very often. 

IPDA: I don't want to hear any NPDA jargon in IPDA. This is debate for a public audience and a lay judge. Arguments should sound and feel conversational. Delivery style (speaker points) should be much more appealing to a lay audience than in any other Forensics event.  This is an event that values research and citation. I want to hear source citation. 


Nathaniel Rogers -- San Diego State University

� 

Nichole Barta -- Irvine Valley College

 

Nichole Barta -- Los Angeles City College

n/a

Nick Fiori -- Hired Judges

n/a

Nick Federico -- Hired Judges

n/a

Nick Matthews -- Cerritos College

Hello! I am a coach 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:

  1. 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 conductive to your chances of winning.

  2. 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. Donâ??t let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a hell of a lot stronger than my understanding of K debate.

  3. 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.

  4. I rarely vote for arguments I donâ??t understand.

  5. 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.

  6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
    - Whining: â??Their implementation is vague and they donâ??t explain it! They donâ??t solve!â? (Waaah!)
    - Argument: â??I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. Firstâ?¦â?

  7. 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.

  8. I donâ??t care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Nick Salazar -- Hired Judges

n/a

Nikhil Emde -- El Camino College

n/a

Olivia Palma -- Grand Canyon University

n/a

Olivia Niedhart -- Point Loma Nazarene University

I have a background in NPDA and consider myself open to a variety of arguments and thoughts. As long as you can give logical reasons supported by evidence, I will listen to and entertain your points without bias. With that being said, debate is based in the communicative discipline, so that should be the main focus of the round. Although I am open to speed and other strategies, you should not out spread your opponents or me. Please feel free to have fun in round, I welcome creativity and humor, as long as it is communicated well. Be respectful of each other, think critically and strategically, try your best, and have fun!


Patricia Hughes -- Rio Hondo Community College

When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

            When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

I am not a fan of Kâ??s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge Kâ??s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For Kâ??s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability. 

            I have a moderate tolerance for speed; however, I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will ask if both teams agree to spread. If there is not an agreement, I will drop the first team to spread. If there is an agreement, be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the teams it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.  

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike. 


Paul Gudiel -- Hired Judges

n/a

Raffaela Baker -- Saddleback College

n/a

Ramy Awad -- Hired Judges

n/a

Renee Orton -- Mt. San Jacinto College

n/a

Rita Rafael -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Robert Comeaux -- Concordia University Irvine

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College

n /a

Roma Diseati -- Northern Virginia Community College

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany -- Grossmont College

n/a

Roxanne De Guzman -- Hired Judges

n/a

Ryan Killian -- Hired Judges

n/a

Ryan Babbitt -- Hired Judges

n/a

Ryan Fobes -- Hired Judges

n/a

Sarah Grace Crocco -- Northern Arizona University

n/a

Sarina Wang -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Scott Plambek -- San Diego Mesa College

n/a

Sean Connor -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Shaela Perin -- Hired Judges

n/a

Sherana Polk -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Sophia Toubian -- Santa Monica College


Sophia Rodriguez -- Hired Judges

n/a

Stephanie Perez-Sandoval -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Stephen Hosmer -- Point Loma Nazarene University

 

Tatiana Guionnet -- Compton College

n/a

Tatiana Guionnet -- El Camino College

n/a

Thuy Pham -- Mt. San Antonio College

n/a

Tim Seavey -- San Diego State University

n/a

Toni Nielson -- Fullerton College

n/a

Tufik Shayeb -- Grand Canyon University


Tyler Watkins -- Concordia University Irvine

 

Victoria Vally -- Hired Judges

n/a

Will White -- El Camino College

n/a

Xavi Torres -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Xochitl Buenabad -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Yakoff Assif -- Santa Monica College

n/a

Zoe Festa -- Hired Judges

n/a