Tabroom.com

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2015 — CA/US

Individual Events Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Asma Abdi Helix Charter None

Randy Ade San Dieguito 5 rounds None

Victoria Allen Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Iwona Alter Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Joseph Alter Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Hiroko Ambo Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Dmitry Andreyev Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Marisa Apostol Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Cesar Armenta Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Rick Armstrong Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Monica Asbill Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Rafik Awadallah Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Jeff Babbitt Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Sarah Barlow Coronado 6 rounds None

Valerie Barten Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Laraine Beltran Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Jeff Benowitz San Dieguito 2 rounds None

Jenny Benowitz San Dieguito 2 rounds None

Carmela Birnbaum San Dieguito 2 rounds None

Lora Blessing Granada Hills 6 rounds None

Edward Bowman Carlsbad 2 rounds None

rita boyd La Costa Canyon 4 rounds None

Andrew Bradvica Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Julia Bricklin North Hollywood 4 rounds None

Angeline Brom Concordia Lutheran 2 rounds None

Bruce Brown Claremont 6 rounds None

Mark Brown Carlsbad 3 rounds None

Susan Brown Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Angela Burk-Herrick Riverside STEM 4 rounds None

Kevin Burke Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

Monica Campbell Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

David Chamberlain Claremont 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:28 AM PDT

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
20 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

Vallinayagam Chidambaram Carlsbad 4 rounds None

Janice Chiu-Kikta La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Steve Coakley Helix Charter 4 rounds None

Thomas Crimmel Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Benjamin Cruz Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds None

Karen Cruz Archbishop Mitty 6 rounds None

Damin Curtis Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Dave Curtis Carlsbad 3 rounds None

Minnia Curtis Carlsbad 6 rounds

Nicole Dalton Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

Abdullah Danishwar Granada Hills 6 rounds None

Jason Davidson Orono 4 rounds None

Lupita De La Torre Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Philip de Leon Helix Charter 2 rounds None

Jo Diamse Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Ramesh Doraiswamy Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Roger Eiler Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Elissa Elder-Aga Claremont 6 rounds None

Matthew Epps Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Joe Ergastolo La Costa Canyon None

Dan Eskew Bonita Vista 2 rounds None

Amparo Eslew Bonita Vista 3 rounds

Barsegh Everekyan Carlsbad 3 rounds None

Jeff Feinberg San Dieguito 2 rounds None

Lori Feinberg San Dieguito 4 rounds None

Karin FitzGerald Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Kevin Flood San Dieguito 2 rounds None

Gail Flores San Dieguito 3 rounds

Tina Flores California 3 rounds None

Joan Gambill Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Anthony Garcia Riverside STEM 6 rounds

Augustus Garcia Santa Fe 6 rounds None

Theresa Garcia Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Susan Gardner Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Ileana Gasman ILEAD North Hollywood 6 rounds None

Fletcher Gibson Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Elisabeth Girke Riverside STEM 6 rounds None

Christine Gonzales San Dieguito 1 rounds None

Dorothy Grafilo Bonita Vista 4 rounds

Jo Ellen Hamilton Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Alex Hamner Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Lucy Helle Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Matt Holzinger Claremont 6 rounds None

don isley La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Paula Isley La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Ashwaq Ismail Helix Charter None

Shawana Jamal Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Vinay Jani Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Anthony Johnson Bonita Vista 2 rounds None

Anna Johnston Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Jennifer Jung-Kim North Hollywood 4 rounds

Jill Kastrup La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Malynda Kay Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Jim Kennedy Mission Vista 6 rounds

Larry Kesslin Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Patty Kirkpatrick Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Linda Kittell Mission Vista 4 rounds

Jaime Knoll Los Angeles 1 rounds None

Marla Knoll Los Angeles 5 rounds None

Andrej Komatina Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Claudine Komatina Bonita Vista 1 rounds None

Iain Lampert ILEAD North Hollywood 6 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..."

Sung Lee Westview 3 rounds None

jan li Peninsula 3 rounds None

Traci Libby Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Caelan Lima Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Andrew Lopez Claremont 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 7:43 AM PDT

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Kevin Lopez California 6 rounds None

David Lozar Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Andrea Madrid El Modena 5 rounds None

Heather Magee-Hill Carlsbad 4 rounds

Cameron Martin Helix Charter 1 rounds None

Sean McAnally Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Michael McCall Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Mary McInturff Desert Oasis 6 rounds None

Soraya Mohammadian Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Mindy Molinary ILEAD North Hollywood 6 rounds None

Thelmalyn Montenegro Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Susan Moore La Canada 4 rounds None

Deanna Murphy Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Ahmed Mustafa Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Marla Naghdi Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Kevin Nasseri Torrey Pines 2 rounds None

Siddhartha Nath Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Carol Newman Helix Charter None

Bac Nguyen Westview 2 rounds None

Michael Nguyen Westview 3 rounds None

Quynh Nguyen North Hollywood 2 rounds None

Aaron Nichols El Modena 5 rounds

Therese Nugent Carlsbad 2 rounds

Andrea O'Gara Oxford 6 rounds None

Norma Ochoa La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Carl Orey Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Jennifer Osborn Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Lori Palmer Carlsbad 4 rounds

Bismaya Parida Westview 2 rounds None

Anne Parizeau Mission Vista 2 rounds

David Parker Helix Charter 4 rounds None

Mara Parker Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Marlyn Paun Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Christy Pavano-Heiskala Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Machel Penn La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Iris Perez San Marino 6 rounds None

Vincent Plaza Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Thazha Prakash Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Pani Ramadurgam Torrey Pines 2 rounds None

John Ramirez California 6 rounds None

Suresh Rankupalli Torrey Pines 2 rounds None

Randy Read Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Katy Rees La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Vladimir Ristic Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Vicente Rodriguez Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Fred Rooholfada Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Tim Rose Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Delynn Russell La Canada 6 rounds None

Brittany Samson Chaminade 2 rounds

april sands La Costa Canyon 1 rounds None

Max Sassanian El Camino Real 6 rounds None

Denise Schall North Hollywood 2 rounds None

Dan Schlusselberg Westview None

Nicholas Sevano Spring Valley 2 rounds None

Paul Sheets Carlsbad 4 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!"

Kyoungmi Shin North Hollywood 2 rounds None

Jeannine Short Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Leslie Sierra Mission Vista 2 rounds None

Rhonda Silvester Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Jacob Smith Claremont 6 rounds None

Mary Smith Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Michael Stephen La Canada 6 rounds None

Janine Stern North Hollywood 4 rounds None

cathy stevens La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Srinivasan Subramaniam Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Melissa Svoboda La Reina

Mandie Theodore La Costa Canyon 4 rounds None

Eric Thompson Mount Miguel 6 rounds None

Bharathy Thridandam Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Hareesh Thridandam Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Chris Tiberia Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Julia Timmerman Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Alex Tosheff La Costa Canyon 1 rounds None

Hong Tran Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Renee Trupiano Carlsbad 3 rounds None

Dave Turner Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Tony Ugalde Schurr None

Denise Vakili Carlsbad 2 rounds

Brenda Van Vreeswyk Mission Vista 2 rounds None

Audrey Veitas San Dieguito 4 rounds None

Karla Velasquez Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Nathan Vigrass Clark 2 rounds

Barry Wang Mission Vista 2 rounds None

Rachel Wear Claremont 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:41 AM PDT

2022 Update

Not coaching anymore, but still running tournaments and judging. Last night I realized that my paradigm was showing up for the CHSSA State Tournament and the NSDA Last Chance Qualifier, and I am judging Congress at both. Do not apply the things below to Congress, with the exception of signposting. Congress is completely different, and I have expectations of decorum, professionalism, knowledge of proper procedures, and efficiency in showing what you can do. Your rank depends on polished speeches, concise questions, knowledgeable responses to the questions you are asked, and demonstrating that you are better at those things than other people in the room. Things like crystallization speeches are awesome if you know what you're doing. We're at higher level tournaments, so I'm optimistic that you probably know what you're doing. Clash is wonderful, as always, but it needs to happen within the realm of Congressional decorum. Not the lack of decorum that many politicians have shifted to, but genuine people coming together to try and make something happen for the greater good. That leads to people being civilized to one another. Keep it classy, Congress!

2021 Update

You must signpost. That will help me follow your arguments better than any roadmap. I'm looking for solid argumentation, with assertions, reasoning, evidence, and impacts.

2/4/2020

Below is some 2015 nonsense, for sure. Written for policy so please don't try to apply it to everything. Some is still true, but let's all have a hearty laugh. Since last updated, I finally earned a Diamond with the NSDA. I still work for the same program, and have expanded my knowledge a great deal. I still love speech. I love Congress more than ever. I was elected VP of Debate and Congress for my league, and have been on the Board of Directors for the California High School Speech Association for the last five years. See the large gaps in judging? I only judge at a couple tournaments a year because I'm helping run the rest. I like rules and procedure. I stopped liking 99.99% of your kritiks. I actually want to hear that you did research on your topic. Don't try to drag circuit policy practices into other events. They are different for a reason. I still flow non-standard. I still think about your mom's hair and car commercials because I am still easily distracted. I still dislike bad roadmapping and pretentious windbags. The later in the day it is, the more likely I am to start squirreling. But wonder if that really is bad, because squirrels are simultaneously awesome and terrifying. Distracted!

4/4/2015

I am currently the assistant coach for the Claremont High School team in Claremont California. My area of expertise is speech, but that doesn’t deter me from being active in judging debate. Before I started coaching anything, I was judging policy. I have judged all forms of debate over the last three years, including at State and Nationals. I frequently judge prelim and elim rounds at West-coast invitationals, including Stanford, Fullerton, Cal Lutheran, and La Costa Canyon.

My philosophy on debate is fairly simple: I want a round that is educational. I try not to limit what debaters will try in a round. Just do it well, and you can win my vote. Make sure you understand what you are trying to do. If you are being slaughtered in cross examination because someone else wrote your case and you don’t understand it, you probably aren’t winning the round. That said, I do like some good clash.

I flow in a non-standard manner. It works for me. Speed is okay, as long as you are loud and clear. If you aren’t, I will let you know.

Because I don’t spend all of my time in the debate rooms, some of the terminology slips my mind. You are already saying thousands of words to me. Please just add a couple more to make sure I am completely following your terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. If you are talking about fiat, please don’t allow me to get distracted thinking about car commercials. Perms are that thing your mom did to her hair in the 80s, right? Keep me focused on your tactics and what you are really trying to do in the round.

I am operating under the idea that you have done a lot of research to write your cases. I haven’t done as much topic research. Please educate me on your topic, and don’t leave blanks for me to assume things. I won’t. I will sit there hoping the opponents will call each other out on holes in the case, and maybe write about it on my ballot after the round. My job as the Judge is to only be influenced by the things that are said in the round, not by what I know from my education and experience.

I really hate people stealing prep under the guise of “off time roadmaps”. I believe they are one of the reasons tournaments run late. Please be concise in the time you have been allotted for your speech. If there are other judges in the room and they want a roadmap, please be brief with your “off time”. Signposting is preferred. Longwinded RFDs are the other reason tournaments fall behind. If we are at the point where the tournament is allowing us to take the time to give a RFD, I will probably only have a couple solid reasons for why I voted the way I did. If I have more, someone has really messed something up.

Don’t be rude to your opponent. You are better than that. But sarcasm is heartwarming.

Amy Willett La Costa Canyon None

Amy Willett La Costa Canyon 2 rounds None

Brad Wilson Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Susan Xiao Claremont 6 rounds

Virgil Young Bonita Vista 2 rounds None

Alice Zhao Arcadia 6 rounds None

Jian Zhao La Canada 4 rounds

Lucy Zhao Rancho Bernardo 6 rounds None

Jing Zhou Rancho Bernardo 2 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2015 — CA/US

Individual Events Paradigm List

Judges