FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alberto Mireles - ELAC

n/a

Alex Cadena - Rio

Background Information: I have 4 years debate experience in Parli. I competed at Rio Hondo Community College in NPDA and IPDA then transferred to the University of Utah and competed in NPDA and IEs. This is my first-year coaching/judging collegiate forensics, and I am a graduate student at CSUN. If me being a first year out is a concern, feel free to strike me. How I evaluate rounds: I find clarity important, make it clear what your argument is and how your impacts are the most important in the round. I like full and completed arguments. Do you have Warrants, Links, Internal Links, and Impacts? If you are running a K, please state the Alternative Twice, it helps me get it down precisely as well as the opposing team. If your K is highly technical, please explain and articulate your argument. Some other comments: Debate is an animal that can bring out a lot of different emotions, please remember that you are competing against humans and treat each other as such. There is no need to reduce our humanity to “win a ballot.” If you don’t care how you win and are willing to treat your opponents poorly. Please strike me, I will not be a critic you want in the back of the room. POI’s are good, and remember to call out POOs in the rebuttals.

Alex Sherwood - Saddleback

Alex Zison - IVC

Ali Majed - Grossmont

Ana'ly Garcia - CBU

Anai Murillo - OCC

Andrea Koningh - OCC

Andrew Perez - Rio

Ayden Loeffler - IVC

Ben Bates - LACC

n/a

Brian Hy - CSULA

Brianna Broady - CSUN

n/a

Casey Santiago - OCC

Ceaser Sanchez - Rio

Chris Jamison - CBU

Christian San Jose - Cerritos College

Christopher Rodriguez - Rio

Daniel Ybarra - Rio

Darian Taban - IVC

Darron DeVillez - Palomar

Das Nugent - OCC

Deserae Rios - OCC

Desiree Rios - Cerritos College

Dorothy Garcia - CSULA

Douglas Kresse - Fullerton Col

Elsa Anaya - Cerritos College

Felix Rodriguez - Rio

Fernanda De La O - CBU

Gabe Lazo - OCC

Genesis Prizmic - IVC

Genesis Prizmic - Compton

n/a

Gordon Ip - ELAC

n/a

Haman Farizi - Palomar

Haywood Hogan - LAVC

n/a

Israel Beltran - ELAC

n/a

Ivana Mckonic - CSUF

n/a

J. Edward Stevenson - ELAC

n/a

James Coster - IVC

Jared Kubicka-Miller - Santiago Canyon

I did four years parliamentary debate. Coached debate as a graduate at CSULB. Am the debate coach at SCC. I am confident that I can follow your arguments as long as you are organized. Debate is not a numbers game to me, having less dropped arguments than your opponent does no mean you win.

Jay Arntson - Glendale CC

Jaymee Huggins - Mesa

Jeff Samano - Fullerton Col

Jordie Conde - Cerritos College

Jose Larios - Rio

Jose Rodriguez - Cerritos College

Juan Guerrero - Rio

Katie Henderson - Chapman

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - Compton

n/a

Kristina Rietveld - Compton

n/a

Kyle Gallego - IVC

Les Belikian - LACC

n/a

Liza Rios - Compton

n/a

Lucie Profenius - IVC

Magan Hall - Mesa

Maksat Idris - IVC

Matt Evans - Long Beach

Matt Volz - Santiago Canyon

I have an extensive beanie baby collection and appreciate it whenever people work beanie babies into their speech.

Michael Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Michael Jackson - LACC

n/a

Michelle Bruce - Mesa

Michelle Moreno - Cerritos College

Miranda Galindo - OCC

NICK MONTERO - ELAC

n/a

Nathan Lopez - ELAC

n/a

Nick Williams - Compton

n/a

Nina Koteylan - CSUN

n/a

Pablo De La Hoya - CSULA

Philip Gohata - Cerritos College

Philippe Noel - IVC

RAUL HERRERA - ELAC

n/a

Rachel Schmidt - Palomar

Renee Keven - Mesa

Richard Cline - Fullerton Col

Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~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. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ 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.   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. 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.  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. 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. 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.     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. 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!

SARAH NAAB - ELAC

n/a

Sam Brady - OCC

Sam Hall - Saddleback

Sarah Beydoun - IVC

Scott Tuggle - Long Beach

Scott Tuggle I debate for Point loma in parli and went back to poliy at MTSU. Counterplans: I lean negative when it comes to conditionality and PICs, but it all comes down to how well the arguments play out. If an AFF blows me away with a PICs bad argument (hey, it could happen), then I tend to reward the better articulated argument.   Abuse: I require actual abuse; tell me what you should have been able to run that you can’t. This goes for T and all spec arguments. If you are going to run procedurals for a time suck and then dump them, fine. I am not going to punish anyone for employing strategy, but if you want me to actually vote on it, the abuse better be pretty clear.   Misuse of facts: I understand this is parli and we don’t have evidence, but that is no excuse for making arguments that are factually wrong. To be clear, I’m not talking about teams that don’t understanding the intricacies of Senate rules, or something equally obscure; I am talking about teams that purposefully misrepresent information. I don’t typically take the initiative, but if I am told to fact check something I will, and speaks usually drop pretty hard if you are lying about something.   Kritiks: They can be fun, but my typical rule of thumb is that if your alt is “reject” it is probably a lazy position. I don’t like all of the hypercritical discussion (Lacan, Zizek, etc.) and tend to default to a policy making paradigm. I do like language K’s and political science K’s.   Decision Making: When I get to the end of a round, I circle impacts and figure out who has access to them. For me, good rounds are won and lost in the rebuttals. The constructives are for laying out arguments but I want you to weigh everything for me in the rebuttals. Collapse to the positions you can win and focus on impact calculus.   Speed/Style: I’m fine with speed as long as you are clear. I think it is important that you slow down for the tags and when you are transitioning to a new argument, but I think it’s silly if you don’t get through your internal links as quickly as possible, especially if your impact is terminal.

Steve Robertson - Cerritos College

Steven Villescas - Rio

Syeda Jafari - IVC

Tim Seavey - Chapman

n/a

Tom Proprofsky - Compton

n/a

Tracey Ng - CSULA

Victor Cornejo - CSULA

I firmly believe that debate should be what you want it to be. Run whatever argument you believe is important for us to have a conversation about. I value quality over quantity and word choice over speed. Your rebuttals should explicitly tell me why you deserve my ballot.

2014 PSCFA Cool-Off