Judge Philosophies

Adam Kaminsky -- College of the Canyons

n/a

Adil Hussain -- El Camino College

n/a

Aimee Newton -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Alex Cadena -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Alicia Batice -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Alix Lopez -- Mt. San Antonio College

n/a

Allison Bowman -- Moorpark College

n/a

Angelica Grigsby -- Maricopa Speech and Debate

n/a

Arthur Valenzuela -- Los Angeles Valley College

n/a

Ashley Love -- California Baptist University

n/a

Aya Akbik -- El Camino College

n/a

Blake Longfellow -- Diablo Valley College

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. 


CLS Ferguson -- California Baptist University

n/a

Caitlyn D'Oyen-Carr -- Mt. San Antonio College

n/a

Chathi Anderson -- Irvine Valley College

 

Christiaan Pipion -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Corey Taft -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Cynthia Canterbury -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Danny Math -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Darron DeVillez -- Grossmont College

n/a

Dawson Khoury -- Mt. San Antonio College

� 

Dorri Mang -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Finny Vuong -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Hannah Haghighat -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Isaiah Washington -- California Baptist University

n/a

James Dabaggian -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Jeffrey Valdivies -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Jen Page -- Cypress College


Jessica Kwack -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Jimmy Gomez -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Joe Faina -- Los Angeles Valley College

n/a

John Cho -- Irvine Valley College

 

Jonas LeBarillec -- El Camino 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 Fleming -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Julia Taylor -- El Camino College

n/a

Kaitlyn Carpenter -- Moorpark College

n/a

Kasim Alimahomed -- Cypress College



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. 


Kristen Ventura -- Moorpark College

n/a

Leia Yen -- El Camino College

 

Li-Ren Chang -- El Camino College

 

Mahnoor Naveed -- Fullerton College

n/a

Marcos Santos -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Marie Arcidiacono Kaufman -- Los Medanos College

n/a

Martin Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College

� 

Matt Conrad -- California Lutheran University

n/a

Meaghan Loeffler -- Irvine Valley College

  I think as long as the Aff can justify it, no plan is too specific. I don't like listening to non-specified plans and this will likely make me more wary of buying case solvency in particular. I think the PMR can theoretically win the debate easily if done right. I highly value an overview with clear voters, don't make more work for yourself in the rebuttal than you need to. Be as organized as possible so that I know where everything should be and you can have the best opportunity to present offense.

I think neg teams have ample opportunity to win on DAs and CPs. I also think it's entirely possible to win on straight case turns and a DA. I'm experienced with a lot of lower level theory args like T and CP theory. When it comes to kritiks, I'm familiar with some of the literature and/or the arguments that are commonly run but I'm not the best judge to run these arguments in front of though I'll do my best to judge them as best I can. If running a kritik is the strat, clear explanation of the denser arguments will increase my chances of voting on them.

Speed shouldn't be a problem but I will call it if I need to, in which case please slow down. 


Michael Gutierrez -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Michael Leach -- College of the Canyons

n/a

Michael Starzynski -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Michael Williams -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Monica Flores-Garcia -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Monique Gevorkian -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Nichole Barta -- Los Angeles City College

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.

Noelle Anderson -- Moorpark College

n/a

Patricia Whitehead -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Ralph Castellanos -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a

Reid Tennant -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Renee Orton -- Mt. San Jacinto College

n/a

Robert Hawkins -- Diablo Valley College

n/a

Robert Loy Jr. -- Fullerton College

n/a

Roger Willis-Raymondo -- Mt. San Antonio College

n /a

Rolland Petrello -- Moorpark College

n/a

Roxanne Tuscany -- Grossmont College

n/a

Sarina Wang -- California State University, Northridge.

n/a

Sean Connor -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Selene Aguirre -- Cerritos College

 

Shannon Yong -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Sherana Polk -- Orange Coast College

n/a

Star Steers -- Los Medanos College

n/a

Thuy Pham -- Mt. San Antonio College

n/a

Toni Nielson -- Fullerton College

n/a

Xavi Torres -- Pasadena City College

n/a

Zoe-Raven Stevens -- Santiago Canyon College

n/a