Judge Philosophies
Alexis Rangel - MJC
n/a
Andres Marquez - Hired
n/a
Brandon Chase - SFSU
n/a
Brenna seiersen - DVC
Brennan Mock - LPC
I teach Non-Circuit debate to Elementary-High School Students.
I am fine with theory, K's and anything except high, high speed.
Ideal Round; Lots of Clash, less definitional unless specifically needed for round to continue, and kindness to one another.
I often will not flow much, I try to listen to each argument and find the most salient points. I do not prioritize spreading over high-quality arguments. I will not believe something has a chance of happening just because you say it does, I need evidence. Tell me how to vote, I will not find voters for you.
Dehum is my pet peeve, unless its actually relevant to your impacts.
FOR NORCAL: Philosophies I agree with; Paul Villa (DVC), Doug and Janene (Solano), Blake Longfellow (Concordia), and Ryan Guy (MJC)
Calie Siplon - Sacramento
Hello! My name is Calie Siplon, and this is my first year as a debate judge. I have been the graduate assistant for the Sacramento State debate team since the beginning of last year and have seven years of theatre and public speaking experience. Please go slow for me and try not to spread. It's difficult for me to keep up.
Christina Peterson - MJC
n/a
Cody Funk - Butte
Former limited prep debater
David Kirker - Sacramento
n/a
Deniz Atayolu - DVC
n/a
Emil Tamm - LPC
n/a
Gabrielyn Kieh - DVC
n/a
Joshua Bruce - MJC
I would be considered a Coms judge, and have approximately a year and a half of debating IPDA at the junior college level. Ive competed exclusively with Modesto Junior College both at novice and open IPDA debate. I greatly enjoy the fun nature and spirit of debate, and am hoping to be involved for many years to come.
How I evaluate rounds:
I feel my preference toward style of debating leans toward a communication centric as opposed to strict flowing of rounds. In general I tend to keep notes on each case, and keep up with refutations, as well as any dropped portions of the case. Keep in mind this is IPDA, and not Parli or LD, so I would prefer debaters not to spread their arguments. Each round the debaters should focus on presenting a clear case that satisfies the resolution, there is no need for focus on debate terminology, or to get caught in squabbles, the best presented case should be the clear winner. When it comes to definitional arguments, certainly some clarity among the purpose of definition as it applies to the resolution is necessary, yet again the focus on squabbles should be avoided. Furthermore framework shant be overly complex. Seeing as this is a novice tournament, I am focusing on the arguments made, and not how well structured they all are. Make sure the impacts of your arguments are clear, and well understood, and how they connect back to the resolution.
Some other comments:
Above all else make sure to have a good time! We are all here as part of the learning experience, and can each benefit from the experience we all bring to this exercise. Please remember to be kind, and that we are all here to learn something, I will not tolerate any poor behavior toward ones opponent. Also off time road maps are encouraged.
My personal background has been focused on healthcare administration, more specifically hospice and palliative care. Im quite well read on the ins and outs of our healthcare system, and the laws that regulate our industry. I also tend to be up to date on current information, and events happening both domestically and internationally. I always appreciate a well researched case, and look forward to judging these rounds.
Kirsten Lofgren - SFSU
Hi I’m Kirsten, I’m a graduate student and assistant coach at SFSU.
Parli:
Any arguments go: case, theory, critique. I want to hear what you have to say; I don’t want you to tell me what you think I want to hear.
affirmative must meet burden of Harms/Uniqueness, Inherently, Plan, Solvency. Make sure to number your impacts for me, especially in novice.
I will protect the flow. I don’t flow new arguments in the rebuttals even if a point of order wasn’t called.
Spreading:
Feel free to spread if that makes you the most comfortable, but I will evaluate slower, common sense arguments above a fast but confusing argument, especially when it comes to Ks. Making yourself clear should be your number one priority.
Critiques:
I love a critique, but you must be organized and the thesis / alternative must be clearly stated and make sense. At least some links or impacts should be contextual to the resolution.
Novices:
If you’re in novice and you don’t use all your speech time, wait 15 seconds or so, don’t be afraid to think quietly about your arguments, make sure you’re not missing anything before giving up the rest of your time. There is no standard in novice parli to be able to think of every little thing off the top of your head. I’d rather hear a round with pauses than a round that the student didn’t get the time they need to carefully think through their argument.
Counter plan in novice:
Please, please take two seconds to make sure your counterplan in actually mutually exclusive.
Topicality in novice:
I have very low expectations for topicality / other theory in novice. This is because some novices are at their first tournament and have never heard it before. Topicality must have all four parts Interpretations, Violation, Standards, Voters. Novices, if you skip standards don’t expect me to vote if your T. Affirmative, pretty much any basic response: “counter interpretation” or “we meet” will fly for me.
Topicality in Open:
I typically prefer Ts that can prove in round abuse, rather than Ts for pure strategy.
I will vote on reverse voting issues or any other offensive on T, feel free to make these arguments.
Kylie Duncan - MJC
Hello! My name is Kylie, and I cant wait to watch some amazing performances! I have been a competitor for two and a half years with Modesto Junior College. I do Oral Interpretation, Platform Speaking, and Limited Preparation events. As such, I have the most experience with I.Es, but Ive judged my fair share of debates during my time in Forensics! There are some things I keep an ear out for:
BE COURTEOUS:My biggest request of debaters is to keep everything civil and be respectful of one another. At the end of the day, were all here to have fun! Any ill-mannered comments during any part of the round will result in a loss of speaker points and a comment on your ballot.
CLASH:I like seeing a good clash! However, please keep everything professional and respectful.
JARGON:I find jargon okay. If you are asked to clarify on any of the terms, though, please do!
ROAD MAPS: I allow off-time roadmaps, and I encourage some sort of signposting/guide so I know how to organize my notes before you start speaking.
SPREADING: Please, no spreading. Talking quickly will most likely result in me missing your arguments. Do not sacrifice your organization for the sake of your speed!
Ks: I am not familiar with Ks, so it is bestnotto run them with me.
WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR: Relevant, clear, and connected arguments with the topic. As a judge, I am coming into the round with a neutral viewpoint, and your objective is to convince me how I should vote with the resolution. In your final speeches, save some time at the end to tell me why you should receive my ballot- your strongest arguments! I do not want to see any arguments that utilize fallacies (Ive provided a link to some of themhere, with examples) because it is an unfair way to debate.
PARLI:Everything is the same as above, but I wanted to add something specifically for this style of debate. Note passing to your partner is okay! Since this is a style of debate with your partner, both of you should be up and debating on your own when the time arrives. Do not speak for your partner, and do not speak audibly loud while the other team is up and debating. It is up to the teams to call out these issues- I will not interrupt the debate as a judge (unless there is an emergency, of course). However, distasteful etiquette will be noted on your ballot if I spot it.
Laura Ainsworth - Santa Rosa
n/a
Lindsey Ayotte - Skyline
I view debate as a friendly intellectual exchange. Please do not assume I know what you are talking about-please give me a bit of context and background on the topic when setting up your case. I have a hard time with speed-do not spread. Not a fan of "everything ending in nuclear war" argument, give me realistic impacts not sweeping generalizatons. I also appreciate a bit of appropiate and professional humor in a round. I do not appreciate competitors who belittle and degrade their opponent, please show your competition respect verbally and non-verbally during a round.
Lucy Giusto - Contra Costa
I have over 30 years of experience in speech and debate. It is important to sign-post in all events so that I know where to apply arguments. Debate events such as IPDA and Parlimentary debate require explanation of the debaters arguments using analogies and examples and some evidence. Debate events like policy debate require evidence and a rationale for the evidence. Please provide a rationale along with a tag.
Manahil Syeda - DVC
n/a
Matthew Cuevas - FCC
n/a
Mikey Gutierrez - SFSU
n/a
Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State
n/a
Phoenix Flum - DVC
n/a
Ty Rivas - LPC
n/a
Zakary Ernest - MJC
Background
I have been debating for about a year and done a IPDA tournaments before. Overall I think the nature of debates are competitive but should be good natured so that both sides go away with good information.
Evaluation
My preference is towards the communication style of the debate. I very much enjoy the back and forth clash that happens between the negative and affirmative. This is the core focus of the debate and both sides should be able to present their argument in a way that allows the scales to tip towards there side of the resolution. The flow is important because it allows organization so if an opponent calls out a drop I will take that into consideration for how I vote. I like the arguments to be well structured so that I as the judge along with the opponent are easily able to follow and try and refute the arguments made. I expect courtesy to the opponent and that both sides have civil discourse. This is IPDA debate which should be courteous and I hope for a wonderful debate!