FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Smith - SJDC

Alan Womble - SJDC

Allen Chan - Ohlone College

n/a

Andrew Ball - Ohlone College

n/a

Angela Gregory - Chabot College

n/a

Ben Warheidt - SJDC

Beulah Agbabiaka - CCC

Billy Oertel - SRJC

Bo Howard - SJDC

Brad Bettridge - Chabot

n/a

Brenda Nelson - SRJC

Bronche Taylor - SJDC

Camaria Nelson - Ohlone College

n/a

Charles Passero - Chabot College

n/a

Chaz Kelley - Chabot College

n/a

Chelsey Clay - SRJC

Dumarrius Steen - SJDC

Eric Campanano - Chabot College

n/a

Fatima Ansary - Chabot

Genna Garay - Enguidanos - Ohlone College

n/a

Hannah Wisner - SJDC

Jael Agababiaka - CCC

James Michaelson - DVC

Jasleen Sandhu - SJDC

Jeanette Winters-Hagar - Shasta

n/a

Jessica Hollie - Chabot

n/a

Johnny Williams - SJDC

Johnny Odell - DVC

Jordan Garcia - SJDC

Kameron Burroughs - CCSF

n/a

Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos

Gardner, Kasey Los Medanos College   Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)   In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly   Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.   I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.   I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.   Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.   There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.

Kate Visilyeva - DVC

Katelyn Mehring - SJDC

Katrina Swanson - San Jose State

Kelly Sekins - CCC

Koji Takahashi - SRJC

Kyle Johnson - CCSF

Lisa Russell - CCSF

Matthew Zweier - San Jose State

I prefer debates that are grounded in reality, where impacts represent legitimate concerns and are not drawn to a hyperbole. I value probability over magnitude for impacts. Clarity is a virtue I hope everyone embodies since it makes my job easier. Spreading is something I do not value and do not wish to hear in a debate. It has no value outside of debate and, in my experience, lessens debate as a whole. I enjoy procedural arguments, but only if they are warranted, and if you do the work to make it a strong argument. Procedurals simply for the sake of winning, when it isn’t appropriate, is poor sportsmanship and something I find distasteful. When it comes to Ks, I will not listen to your K unless you can prove the government is being truly abusive. Running a K for the sake of winning, such as running a preprepared K because you figure the other team won’t know how to respond, will only hurt you in the round. I like to see clash in the round that focuses on the topic we have been called to debate. Strong arguments with clear links, evidence to support, and a great presentation are what makes a great debate.

Micahel Murray - DVC

Mitchell Colbert - San Jose State

n/a

Nicholas Aguirre - SJDC

Randy Hammond - De Anza

n/a

Robb Lightfoot - Shasta

n/a

Robert Flores - SJDC

Sage Russo - Chabot College

n/a

Sean Totanes - Chabot College

n/a

Sergio Suhett - CCSF

n/a

Shawn Maharaj - Chabot

n/a

Suzanne Ruckle - Yuba

n/a

Tiger Hays-Lohrey - DVC

Tim Elizondo - Columbia

Background:  I am the founder and director of the Columbia College Speech and Debate program.  Since receiving my doctorate in Cultural Studies, I have been teaching philosophy and speech courses for the past seven years.   The program’s emphasis is towards success at the State and National Championship tournaments held on the two year level.  I will never vote on dehumanization if you use the term as a kind of shorthand for oppression, death, or some sort of other severely inhumane notion or treatment of poepple.  Use different langauge to articulate this idea set as the idea set associated with "duhmanization" as a debate buzzword are minimized by the trend in debate to use it as jargon. Pedagogically speaking, I am influenced by the writings of Paulo Freire, John Warren, and other critical scholars.  As a result, I view debate as an active and evolving game that has the potential to promote positive social change. This kind of scholarship promotes critical positions within the activity while reminding debaters that the utility of the activity resides in the debater’s ability to communicate their arguments to those who lack elite-level training in listening, flowing, or jargon deconstruction.   I do not begin the debate with the assumption that any kind of effect articulated within a Government’s plan inherently outweighs the discourse within a round.  I am interested in exploring the implications and limitations of a “pre-fiat” paradigm, but this is not an expectation placed upon the debaters. Prefiat > post fiat. I expect to see “gear changes” in the styles and speed of the PM and LO.  I understand a PMC may need to be quick, Rebuttals, however, should contain less emphasis on line-by-line analysis and, instead, seek to weigh out winning arguments. .   -I strive to record every argument offered in the debate, however, that should not be confused with an acceptance of every argument as valid, relevant, or compelling.   -I am persuaded by speakers who strive to engage the audience with eye-contact, humor, style, or other aspects of effective public speaking.   -I do not mind “tag teaming” during points of order however, speaker points will be affected if it appears as if one partner is acting as a parrot or puppet for the other.   -Politically speaking, I am open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.   -Tell me where to vote…Tell me where to vote….Tell me where to vote

Toan Nguyen - Chabot

Travis Trapp - Chabot College

n/a

2011 NCFA Spring Fling (Novice Only) Tournament