La Costa Canyon Winter Classic
2015
—
CA/US
Parliamentary Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Iwona Alter
Rancho Bernardo
2 rounds
None
Veronica Arboleda
Mission Vista
3 rounds
Last changed on
Mon November 30, 2015 at 7:44 PM EDT
I've judged all debates, mostly novice, public forum being my favorite.
Some preferences:
- I need easy-to-follow roadmaps/good signposting. Be organized.
- If you're going to use fancy debate jargon be sure to clearly explain what it means/what you're doing
- Assume I know nothing of the topic and convice me that you are the expert
- if you need to speak quickly, be sure to articulate but otherwise; don't
- make your voters clear
- be passionate and enthusiastic, but at the same time remember to be respectful to your opponent and your teammate
Judging debate can be tedious at times, so any new or different way of expressing your arguments is appreciated. Don't take yourself too seriously and remember to crack a joke once in a while :)
Rafik Awadallah
Rancho Bernardo
4 rounds
None
Amy Brandmeyer
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Julia Bricklin
North Hollywood
3 rounds
None
Mark Brown
Carlsbad
1 rounds
None
Stella Chang
Peninsula
6 rounds
None
Daein Chung
Torrey Pines
2 rounds
Last changed on
Tue August 23, 2016 at 10:37 PM PDT
I am a parent judge and this is my second year from judging Policy and LD.
- Please refrain from spreading, especially when you get into more complex arguments, will be harder for me to keep up with.
- Please make sure you define all obscure words and explain them clearly.
- I tend to weigh on 'countering' so please do your best to knock out all of opponent's arguments.
Being rude will make you lose speaker points, and if excessive, I will vote against you.
I will not disclose a result.
Gregory Cody
Rancho Bernardo
3 rounds
None
John Del-Zio
Mission Vista
3 rounds
None
Curt Erales
San Dieguito
1 rounds
None
Barsegh Everekyan
Carlsbad
6 rounds
None
Annie Flager
San Dieguito
None
Tina Flores
California
3 rounds
None
robert gonzalez
La Costa Canyon
1 rounds
None
Scott Hansen
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Daniela Iftimie
Torrey Pines
3 rounds
None
Shawana Jamal
Rancho Bernardo
1 rounds
None
Amy Keller
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Iain Lampert
ILEAD North Hollywood
3 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:10 AM CDT
1) I like watching debates that would inspire an average student who doesn't do debate to join the activity, or an average parent/guardian judge to urge their student to join.
2) Everybody in the round should be able to watch back a recording of the round and be able to understand what was going on. In other words, don't intentionally run arguments that your opponents won't understand.
3) While developing the skills to win the game on the circuit is certainly laudable--because of debate, I now listen to everything on x2 speed--I don't enjoy watching most circuit debates. I prefer debaters to hover around 200-250 words per minute. Choose quality arguments instead of gish galloping around the flow, and collapse on your one or two best pieces of offense. Weigh those key arguments against your opponent's, taking them at their highest ground.
3) Don't make claims that your evidence doesn't support. Powertagging is bad scholarship. If I call for a piece of evidence and see that it is powertagged, I will intervene.
4) I am more likely to intervene in a theory-level debate than a case-level debate. If you tell me that your opponents' practices are making the activity worse, I will consider their practices in the context of what I know about the activity. I am open to my mind being changed on these issues; my knowledge of the activity is limited. However, I am biased against evaluating what I see as frivolous theory arguments or tricks.
5) Tell me where I should be flowing at all times. If you don't tell me, I may mess up.
6) I don't find rudeness to be a persuasive rhetorical tool. You can be an incredibly effective debater and advocate while focusing on your opponent's arguments, not their personal deficiencies.
7) It's helpful to acknowledge where your opponents may be winning. Give me a permission structure to believe some of their arguments but still vote for you. "Even if..." "The tiebreaker is..."
Karen Lopez
La Costa Canyon
1 rounds
None
Kevin Lopez
California
2 rounds
None
Heather Magee-Hill
Carlsbad
6 rounds
Last changed on
Wed December 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM PDT
I like clear moderate paced engaged but professional debates. I will need k philosophies explained thoroughly. I am truth over tech. I am a parent judge who has been judging Policy, PF, LD and World schools at the state and national level for 2 years.
Anindo Majumdar
Westview
None
Alejandra Merli
Mission Vista
None
Mary Merz
San Dieguito
5 rounds
None
Soraya Mohammadian
Rancho Bernardo
3 rounds
None
Quynh Nguyen
North Hollywood
3 rounds
None
Lori Palmer
Carlsbad
5 rounds
Last changed on
Thu December 3, 2015 at 6:05 AM PDT
As a judge, I look for strong, clear presentations backed by evidence when applicable. Humor, comedic timing when appropriate. Ease and comfort in conveying a point of view or performing a piece; confidence and conviction are key.
Tim Quach
San Dieguito
1 rounds
None
Suresh Rankupalli
Torrey Pines
None
Rosalia Rodriguez
Mission Vista
3 rounds
None
Delynn Russell
La Canada
3 rounds
None
William Schnellinger
Mission Vista
None
Paul Sheets
Carlsbad
6 rounds
Last changed on
Wed December 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM PDT
Debates: I want you to convince me that your side is the "correct" one. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not. I have judged lots of PF, Parli, and LD, but consider myself a "Flay" judge.
Spread at your own risk! Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me with information and data vice being "on point" with your arguments it will most likely work against you. On the flip side providing me lots of relevant information and facts can help you, as long as it is all germaine and meaningful. There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value well founded points that are delivered deliberately and effectively more than those that are delivered haphazardly or in a flurry of words. Take your time and DON'T WASTE WORDS!
I will reward elequent / articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins, so focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points - that is what will decide whether you win or not.
Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex! I realize your tempers may flare depending on what your opponents may say or do, but part of what I am looking for is your ability to remain professional and level-headed despite that. I have been known to "ding" a team if I feel they were excessively rude and/or condescending.
IEs: I am looking for a presentation / performance that has a solid underlying message / meaning and I really want to feel that it is coming from your heart vice just being recited. I believe IEs can and should make people think as well as just be entertaining. A topic that is "funny", "tragic" or "sorrowful" isn't necessarily thought provoking. Your use of the whole "stage", eye contact, projection, inflection, etc. really influence how powerfully your message comes across. I want to sense an aura of confidence and command of your material when you are performing. Endeavor to "Own the Room!"
Sarah Sherwood
Servite
6 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 7:56 AM PDT
UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update
I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.
Congress
Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.
POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.
Public Forum
- I know how to flow and will flow.
- This means I require a road map.
- I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
- I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
- I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
- Be strategic and make good life choices.
- Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
- I will vote on case turns.
- I will call for cards if it comes down to it.
Policy Debate
I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.
LD Debate
Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.
Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.
Kyoungmi Shin
North Hollywood
3 rounds
None
Jeannine Short
Carlsbad
2 rounds
None
Jacob Smith
Claremont
3 rounds
None
Christy Stanley
La Costa Canyon
1 rounds
None
Andrea Sun
Torrey Pines
2 rounds
None
Christine Tempesta
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Lauren Tosheff
La Costa Canyon
3 rounds
None
Janet Unger
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Audrey Veitas
San Dieguito
3 rounds
None
Kevin Virgil
Mission Vista
3 rounds
None
Wenlian Wang
Torrey Pines
3 rounds
None
Krerica Whitmire
Carlsbad
3 rounds
None
Sandy Wimsatt
San Dieguito
3 rounds
None
Steve Wimsatt
San Dieguito
Last changed on
Wed October 14, 2015 at 4:06 AM PDT
I am a parent judge. I've been judging policy debate for 6 years so I understand the rules and I strive to select the winner based on the arguments presented in the debate.
I am comfortable with speed so long as you are clear. However, I'm not an ex-debater, so if you get too far away from traditional debate I may not understand how to handle your arguments. To be clear, if you try a K you need to ensure there is clear linkage so I have a basis for determining the winner.
david woodard
La Costa Canyon
1 rounds
None