Peninsula Invitational

2018 — Rolling Hills Estates, CA/US

Jamilah Bazille Paradigm

Competed 2 years collegiate speech & debate. Judged at 5 high school tournaments before.

Nick Bishop Paradigm

Second year parli debater at El Camino College. Did parli for four years at Peninsula.

Sergio Boixo Paradigm

Spartan Fall 2016 & Spring 2017 Classic invitational- judged both speech & debate. WBFL League debate tournament Fall 2016 & Fa

Matthew Brandstetter Paradigm

I am primarily a tabula rasa judge, adjudicating arguments as presented in the round. Theoretical arguments are fine as long as they contain the necessary standards and voting issue components. I am not a huge fan of the kritik but will entertain the argument as well as counter arguments that speak to its legitimacy. I am adept at flowing but cannot keep up with exceptionally fast-paced speaking. I will do my best but may not render everything on the flow to its fullest potential. I am an advocate that debate is also an event that involves the cogent, persuasive communication of ideas. Debaters who can balance argumentation with persuasive appeal will earn high marks from me in the back of the room. 

RFD is usually based on a weighing calculus - I will look at a priori arguments first before considering other relevant voters in the round. On a side note: I am not fond of debaters coming to shake my hand before or after the round; the most you may receive is a fist bump, yet with all the germs circulating at tournaments, I prefer a simple thank you voiced by competitors after the round, if they feel so inclined.

Ruwanthi Ekanayake Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Finnigan Paradigm

 

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 3 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Mike Kyle Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Lake Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laurie Lande Paradigm

Not Submitted

Damon Lawson Paradigm

TLDR: Been doing this for quite a while. 7 years total in forensics. 7 years doing Interp/Platforms/Limited Prep. 3 years doing collegiate Debate, specifically all of the areas listed prior as well as Parli Debate and IPDA Debate.

Debate: My views on debate are very straight forward. I believe that debate is both academic and a game. It is first a basis of argumentation and speech, and secondly an avenue for competition. What this means is, I fully understand the ways how debate has evolved over time to become this great source of competition, however I find it necessary to to respect its academic roots, so please try your best to make well educated arguments and analysis in round, rather than running a bunch of asinine arguments because you think you can win on them. With all that being said, lets go into some specifics.

Speed: I am okay with speed most of the time. As a collegiate parliamentary debater, I as well as many of the individuals I compete with go rather fast. With that being said, I do believe that speed has a huge trade off. Sure, you can get out more arguments when you speak fast, however the quality and depth of those arguments can suffer. Furthermore, speaking fast often times has an adverse affect on your speaking ability and clarity. To put it simply, Clarity> Speed, everyday. Next, I am a Hard of Hearing individual, so if you are speaking fast and mumbling, I probably cannot understand you, and will call you to clear. If that happens its probably a key sign to either slow down or enunciate.

T: Yes, do it, love it. *okay hand sign emoji*

Kritik: Kirtiks can be awesome... if done right. Please make sure you understand the arguments you are trying to run. I will be the first person to call you out if you try to read some neolib argument you don't actually understand.

Timing: Please time yourselves.

Partner Communication: Sure, don't puppet your partner, and don't be loud and distracting while your opponent is speaking.

John Masi Paradigm

I do not flow cross-x or POI

Lincoln-Douglas

I have judged and competed LD for the past few years. Anything goes as long as both sides of the debate are respectful. Be sure to clearly link to your Impacts and tell me where I should be voting.

Look to parli for theory

Parliamentary

I have competed and judged parli for the past few years. I am ok with any arguments as long as you can prove why they belong in the round. Try and make the round clear and tell me why I should vote for your side.

Theory is important to debate and if that's where I need to vote I will. If you believe there is ground abuse, please articulate such and explain why it outweighs any and all impacts in the round.

Public Forum

I competed in public forum for four years and high school and have judged a few rounds. Public Forum relies on speaking style and fluency but it still is a form of debate- if you drop an argument or lose on impacts, I'll vote there.

Policy

I have debated policy and judged policy. Everything goes. Look to LD for anything else.

Matt Miyasaki Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mika Okabe Paradigm

My experience stems mostly from parliamentary debate and individual events such as IPDA, extemporaneous, and impromptu speaking. I will be as tabula rasa as possible while judging, and during the rebuttal speeches I will flow new arguments unless the other team calls them out on a point of order. Even if information sounds false, I will not contribute anything to the flow unless this is pointed out by a member on the other team. Technical arguments like topicality will be considered and for the most part, the opposition will have access to their prepared disadvantages even if topicality is presented. Speed is fine to an extent, but if the other team asks you to slow down I expect that to happen. Speaker points will be given equally based off of eloquence and quality of arguments being made.

Nathaniel Stephenson Paradigm

2nd year at El Camino Debate Team. Participates in Parli, NFALD, and IE's

David Turpin Paradigm

Competed 2 years collegiate Speech & debate. Judged high school WBFL league debate, Spartan Aloha Classic Invitational, & State