Judge Philosophies
Adam Navarro - Cerritos College
Aimee Newton - CSUN
n/a
Alex Ortega - PCC
n/a
Alexis Arredondo - PCC
n/a
Alice Mecom - Rio
Allison Bowman - Moorpark
n/a
April Griffin - Cerritos College
Arthur Valenzuela - LAVC
n/a
Brandon Fletcher - IVC
n/a
Carl Trigilio - PCC
n/a
Dana-Jean Smith - Saddleback
n/a
Danny Cantrell - Mt SAC
n/a
David Hale - ELAC
n/a
Erin Roberts - OCC
Francesca Bishop - El Camino
<p>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; if you drop a lynchpin argument, or a framework arrgument (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. </p> <p>Because I try to base my decision based only 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 liberal positions. Arguments are just that--arguments. I don't assume you believe them or care if they are "true." In general, know that I believe that debate is a game.</p>
Frank Masi - El Camino
Franklin Reynolds - Mt SAC
n/a
Gloria Keawe - Rio
Hannah Haghighat - OCC
Harrison Shieh - El Camino
Hasnu Kwatra - PCC
n/a
Heather Kelley - Cerritos College
Jamie Morgan - LAVC
n/a
Jasmine McLeod - Mt SAC
n/a
Jedi Curva - ELAC
n/a
Jeff Valdivieso - PCC
n/a
Jenna Patronete - Moorpark
n/a
Jim Wyman - Moorpark
n/a
Jimmy Gomez - OCC
Joe Faina - LAVC
n/a
John Hsiao - Rio
Juan Victorio - El Camino
Justin Perkins - Cypress
n/a
Katrina Taylor - LASC
n/a
Kelly Kehoe - IVC
Kevin Briancesco - LAVC
n/a
Kristina Ewing - Moorpark
n/a
Le-Rin Chen - IVC
Lucas Ochoa - Saddleback
n/a
Matt Doty - El Camino
Matthew Schaupp - PCC
n/a
Michael Kalustian - LACC
n/a
Michael Moran - Rio
Michelle Gironda - OCC
Mike Parra - OCC
Neal Stewart - Moorpark
n/a
Nichole Barta - IVC
Nick Matthews - Cerritos College
<p>Hello! I am a full-time coach at Cerritos College. I debated in both high school and college for eight years, and I have been coaching at the college level for the past five years. Here are a few important things to know when I am judging you:</p> <p>1) I am partly deaf and wear hearing aids, so I will probably sit towards the front of the room. Please speak up a bit and speak at a conversational pace of speed. Otherwise, I may not be able to flow all of your arguments.</p> <p>2) I am fine with all types of arguments—DAs, CPs, Ks, procedurals, etc.—as long as they are well-executed and well-explained. The caveat: if your argument is particularly novel or if I have never heard it before, I will be less confident in my understanding and evaluation of it. This goes for both kritiks and obscure politics disads. "You haven't explained _______ well enough" is a line that frequently appears in my RFDs. </p> <p>3) I like to read about what's happening in the world. Since knowledge is subjective, I try to minimize the influence of my reading on my evaluation of your arguments, but I definitely have a bias against arguments which rely on faulty factual premises.</p> <p>4) An argument consists of three parts: a claim, support, and an implication. The last of these is very important. Why does your argument matter? What is the impact? How does it relate to other arguments? How should it influence my evaluation of the debate? Debaters who directly answer these questions are far more likely to win. Don't leave them up to me to resolve. </p> <p>5) Similarly, you should focus on comparative evaluations of arguments in your rebuttals. It is insufficient to win that an argument is valid; you also have to prove that it is preferable in some way to what your opponent argued. Focus on argumentative depth over breadth. Narrowing the debate down to a few key issues and kicking out of less important arguments is always a smart play.</p> <p>6) I am nonverbally expressive as a judge, so pay attention to me. If you see me nodding, you're probably saying something smart and you should emphasize it. If I look skeptical about your argument, I probably am. Use this information appropriately. </p> <p>If you have more specific questions, I am always happy to answer them before the round. Good luck, and don't forget to have fun!</p>
Nick Bishop - El Camino
Nicole Sandoval - SJDC
Patricia Hughes - Rio
<p>I have 3 years of experience in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal experience in impromptu and extempt. I am a graduate student at CSUF and an assistant coach in debate.</p> <p>I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. 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.</p> <p> 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.</p> <p>I am not a fan of K’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 K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’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. </p> <p> 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.</p> <p> I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments.</p> <p>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.</p>
Paxton Attridge - ELAC
n/a
Rachel Lobo - El Camino
Robert Hawkins - DVC
n/a
Roger Willis-Raymondo - Mt SAC
n/a
Rolland Petrello - Moorpark
n/a
Roxan Arntson - Mt SAC
n/a
Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont
<p>~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California. I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year. I have also coached and judged British Parli in China.</p> <p><br /> As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ<br /> Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods. Therefore, stand when speaking. When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them. Never, speak for them. I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information. If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines. <br /> The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate". I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important. Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team.<br /> I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me. What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is. What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style. <br /> I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions: FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc. There are fact and value resolutions. They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is. That is part of the debate.<br /> Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate. In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage.<br /> I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing. <br /> Speed has no place in parliamentary debate. For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate. It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world. If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem. I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear". An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you. Jargon should be used sparingly. We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon. Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon. Quickly, briefly explain your terms.<br /> Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge. I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states. I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me. I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues. Enjoy!<br /> </p>
Ryan Skolnick - CLU
<p>I've been involved in forensics for seven years, competing in NPDA and NFA-LD style debate, and serving as an assistant coach at La Reina High School in Thousand Oaks, California. I judge a consistent amount of rounds yearly, so I'm relatively up to date on the what's become popular lately in debate.</p> <p> </p> <p>Outside the realm of debate, I work as a policy analyst. As such, it's safe to assume that, unless I'm told otherwise, I default to a policymaker mindset in debate. I try to be tabula rasa to the best of my ability, but it's simply the reality of the world that every judge is going to have preconceived notions about the topics and about debate itself. Unless a team does something horribly abusive or runs an argument that the layman knows is absurd, I tend to do a good job with being a blank slate.</p> <p> </p> <p>Presentation is largely irrelevant to my ballot. Speed is fine. All I ask is that you slow for tags. </p> <p> </p> <p>Case args are underrated. Turns often go lightly addressed and I treat them as I would any other source of offense on the ballot. Good case debate will steal you a lot of rounds.</p> <p> </p> <p>I vote on T (and all procedurals, for that matter) and I will vote on it how I'm told (reasonability vs competing interps). In the absence of any argumentation on that front from either side, I do tend to default to reasonability. </p> <p> </p> <p>My A-strat in Parli on neg was the PIC and in NFA it was the consult counterplan. Stands to reason that I love a good CP debate. "Cheating" and Condo CPs are good, but I will vote them down if Aff wins the theory argument. </p> <p> </p> <p>I enjoy good K debate (emphasis on good). But bad K debate derails any education that could be gathered from critical discussion, which of course defeats the justification. Lazy alts (Imagine a world without 'insert bad thing here' is a lazy alt, you need to actually solve somewhat), overly generic links, and messy structure all result in this. If you run a K, understand that I'm likely not as well read as you on the material, so please slow for tags and explain how your K functions.</p> <p> </p> <p>I will vote on Performance Ks with a few caveats. First, I'm a straight, cisgender white dude, so asking me to evaluate ID performance is one of the most literal expressions of white hegemony I can think of in the context of the debate space. Be very mindful of this. Also, your opponent must have access to the ballot. Make sure to lay out, in clear terms, what their access to the debate space is in the context of your K. This is especially important if you are running a performance as the affirmative. Finally, while I do my best to be tabula rasa, I tend to find policy debates, flawed as they may be, more accessible than most performances I've seen. This means I'm very open to "policy good" framework. Again, no judge is without bias, and I find it important to lay my cards on the table.</p> <p> </p> <p>Please, DO NOT call for a Point of Order. I will always rule it under consideration. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttals myself as the critic. Points of Order are abused on the regular now to disrupt the flow of rebuttals, and I simply grew tired of it. </p> <p> </p> <p>Finally, it's important to note that at the end of the day, as the critic, my job isn't to impose my will on you all as debaters. My job is to evaluate the debate that takes place in front of me. Everything listed above is functionally irrelevant when a team clearly outdebates the other. If you want to make earning my ballot more likely, I recommend sticking to what I outlined above. </p>
Sarah Kwon - PCC
n/a
Sasan Kasravi - DVC
<p>I go by what the debaters tell me as much as possible. I'm very comfortable with theory-heavy arguments but you should know how to run them and know I'm also very willing to vote against you in the round if the other team articulates how you're being abusive. The only writing I do during rebuttals is making a list of your voters, so be very clear about why I should vote for you and how your voters stack up against your opponent's voters. I personally hate spreading, so I'm very receptive to kritiks or procedurals run against spreading teams, but it's still up to teams to tell me to vote against spreaders and why.</p> <p>Don't be mean and let's make it fun and worth everyone sacrificing their weekend to be here.</p>
Sean Connor - OCC
Sherana Polk - OCC
<p>First, I like arguments that just make logical sense. Rarely will I buy that a plan is going to lead to a nuclear war; no matter how many internal links you have. So please make arguments that are realistic. However, I try my best to judge the round only on what the debaters say and not my personal opinions. Therefore, if a team does not respond to an argument, no matter how illogical that argument is, I could still vote for it. I don't think that you have to respond to all 35 warrants to say why one argument is ridiculous but you do have to make a response. </p> <p>Second, delivery is important. The only way to be persuasive is to be understandable. If you are spreading then you are less understandable. If I can't understand you then I am unwilling to vote for you. Please be organized and signpost where you are at. If I am lost I am less willing to vote for you.</p> <p>Third, I think that there are three types of debate. So I like listening to policy, value, and fact debate. Trying to shove policy into every debate topic annoys me. So run the proper case for the proper resolution. If you decide not to and Opp runs Tricot then I will vote there. I also think that Gov should always stay on topic. So if Gov is non-topical then run T. I don't think that T must have articulated abuse in order to be a real voting issue. If you are non-topical, no matter how debatable the case is, you lose. So just argue the topic. I am willing to listen to Kritiques. I am not a fan of K's because the vast majority of times that I have seen K debates they are unclear and really is just a tactic to not debate the actual issue. However, there are sometimes when the K is necessary. So run it at your own risk. </p> <p>Overall, I really like debate. If competitors run clear arguments, with strong pathos, and are civil to one another then I am a happy judge. So do your best!</p>
Thomas Morgenwroth - PCC
n/a
Tim Seavey - PCC
n/a
William Neesen - IVC
<h2>Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach</h2> <h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3> <p> </p> <p>Bill Neesen<br /> Cal. State Long Beach & Irvine Valley College<br /> <br /> Parli Debates judged this year: 40+<br /> Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 10+<br /> Years Judging Debate: 15<br /> Years Competed in Debate: 7<br /> What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton<br /> <br /> Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it.'<br /> <br /> Decision-making Approach: 'I really don t like any of the above. It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you. '<br /> <br /> Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were droped and why that makes them important.'<br /> <br /> Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to imput what I think and I love that.'<br /> <br /> Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scarry shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.'<br /> <br /> Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.'<br /> <br /> Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debator. '</p> <p> </p> <p><br /> </p>
Yancy Duncan - LASC
n/a
Zack Segretto - Canyons
n/a