2020 Cerritos College Fall Speech Contest

Cerritos College - Dec 6-13 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Squad Room   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Dejean - Cerritos

Alyssa Bueno - Cerritos

n/a

April Bracamontes - Cerritos

 

Becca Covington - Cerritos

n/a

Brooke Hanniff - Cerritos

Chandni Patel - Cerritos

n/a

Chris Forsythe - Cerritos

Eduardo Bohmer - Cerritos

Edward Martinez - Cerritos

n/a

Halleh Nia - Cerritos

Hugo Garcia - Cerritos

n/a

Jennifer Acosta-Licea - Cerritos

Jessica Paek - Cerritos

Joseph Wackerman - Cerritos

n/a

Kimberly Rosenfeld - Cerritos

Lily Romero - Cerritos

n/a

Mohammad Naqvi - Cerritos

n/a

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics 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 conducive 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. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.

  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 don'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: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
    - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...

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

Omar Gutierrez-Rocha - Cerritos

n/a

Pedro Garcia - Cerritos

n/a

Rachel Judy - Cerritos

Sara Sanchez - Cerritos

n/a

Sierra Kinney - Cerritos

n/a

Stephanie Jo Marquez - Cerritos

n/a

Steve Guerra - Cerritos

n/a