Tabroom.com

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2016 — Carlsbad, CA/US

Individual Events Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Lisa Abrishamkar Canyon Crest 4 rounds None

Randy Ade San Dieguito 5 rounds None

Yalda Alawi Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Mercedes Allen Canyon Crest 6 rounds None

Pam Alster-Jahrmarkt ILEAD 6 rounds None

Lameea Alsuqi Riverside STEM 6 rounds None

Veronica Alter Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Hiroko Ambo Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Carla Anntonazzi El Camino Real 6 rounds None

Cesar Armenta Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Jeff Babbitt Helix Charter 6 rounds None

AnnMarie Baines El Cerrito 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 7:26 PM EDT

I have been coaching forensics since 2001, leading programs in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Parliamentary Debate, and all Individual Events. I am now the Founder and Executive Director of The Practice Space, a non-profit dedicated to elevating underrepresented voices through public speaking programs, curriculum, and coaching. I also coach debate coaches and have started 5 forensics programs. In high school, I competed on the national circuit in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, going to elimination rounds at many major tournaments, including State Championships, Stanford Round Robin, Glenbrooks, UC Berkeley, Emory, and winning MLK. I also went to State Finals and Nationals in Individual Events (Dramatic Interpretation and Duo Interpretation).

The following refers to all forms of debate:

As a judge, I believe that speech and debate should be about communication and persuasion. While I can handle speed and know the jargon, debate should ultimately be about making the right choices in the round and giving strong explanations. I flow well and am okay with kritiks and topicality (although not enamored with them). Don’t let speed and jargon get in the way of clear communication. It’s not about winning every argument, but choosing the right ones by identifying the right clash, weighing the arguments, and concluding with a clear and persuasive story of the round. I ultimately judge rounds based on standards.

To me, the final speeches are the most important. Be clear about the standard for the round and don’t forget to impact well. I hate off-time roadmaps and starting off rounds with “time starts now”. Balance defense with offense and paint the picture of your side’s world. Do NOT be rude! I do not vote for people who are rude. If you are on the negative, make sure you leave enough time for clear voting issues in your last speech and don’t spend the whole time on line-by-line. The final affirmative speech should not contain line-by-line.

Martin Barash New West 4 rounds None

Rudolph Barcenas Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

Dave Beck El Cerrito 6 rounds

Heather Bilson Westridge 6 rounds

Lora Blessing Granada Hills 6 rounds None

Della Bloom Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Mike Borgsdorf Granada Hills 6 rounds None

Andrew Bradvica Helix Charter None

Colin Burnett La Costa Canyon 3 rounds None

Paola Burns Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Monica Campbell Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

Robert Casey Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Edwin Chen Canyon Crest 3 rounds None

Venkateswari Chetty Riverside STEM 4 rounds None

Keren Chulde California 5 rounds None

Cody Cloud Bakersfield Christian 3 rounds None

John Conley Mission Vista 3 rounds None

Matt Conrad La Reina 2 rounds

Eric Covell California 5 rounds None

Holly Cunningham El Modena 4 rounds None

Damin Curtis Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Eric Dahlstrom North Hollywood 6 rounds None

Nicole Dalton Westridge 5 rounds None

Philip De Leon Mount Miguel 2 rounds

Abigail Diamse Bonita Vista 2 rounds None

Nada Dibas Bonita Vista 6 rounds

Mark Durfee La Costa Canyon 4 rounds None

Karen Ehrenberg ILEAD 6 rounds None

Marla Ehrlich Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Sam Elliott Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Roya Eskandar Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Lisa Eyler Canyon Crest 2 rounds None

Monique Feig ILEAD 4 rounds None

Lynne Floto Rancho Bernardo 5 rounds

Joan Gambill Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Doug Gardner Helix Charter 6 rounds None

Khamani Griffin North Hollywood 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:03 PM PDT

coaching (LD/Worlds/Speech) for Harvard-Westlake (2023-present)

coached (PF/LD/Policy/Parli/Speech) at Flintridge Prep and Westridge School from 2018 - 2023

competed in NPDA and Speech at LAVC

competed in Policy at southwestern cc and USC

email chain —-> trojandebateteam@gmail.com ,

*ask me about debating at USC*

(I try to change my paradigm up a little bc I coach and judge a lot of things and it can be overwhelming if you think im a worlds person when I do policy or when you think you have an LD judge in the back of your congress rd)

for Worlds TOC (-- 4/20/24)

ask questions, I’m happy to answer things. Above all, I love good spirited debate, strong refutations, collapsing down of arguments, strategic concessions, comparative weighing and framing. Tell me how I should be seeing the round so I don’t have to intervene and frame it myself and your rfd will likely follow suit! I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story to resolve things and tend not to to have the energy to weigh alternative ways in which the round could’ve gone, but I’ll give you recommendations of what might’ve gotten my ballot or where I felt I could’ve been persuaded.

content — good presentation of information, structure,
strategy — good debate tech, answering of questions, taking questions, etc
style — in depth analysis of said content and its implications, your aesthetic representations of this

Quick thoughts for pref sheets (usually for LD/policy)

general debate thoughts

1) I don't tell you how to debate but I do have preferences. That's just because I want everyone to see my ballot as accessible and within reach, not because I'll drop you if you challenge my preferences. I often rewrite my paradigm bc of how talented and exceptional debaters are. As such, I will vote on anything except:

RVIs on T,
friv theory (I think you can justify good practices and make them into args on the flow, disclosure is not friv)
Tricks (these should be impact framing args imo),
and I will not vote on arguments that implicate something that has happened out of round that I have not witnessed or been a part of. Screenshots are fine but I give a lot of defense bc I personally have no context

2) I think debate is super fun when there is an embodied or critical element to it -- if you read plans and defend us heg, just be passionate about it and tell me why I should care and I'm certain you can snag a 29 or higher otherwise disembodied debates tend to be super stale and you should definitely disconnect from the document and make the debate feel real for me. I am not a drone and I like debates to feel like I'm not an ai robot

3) I have a pretty low evidentiary standard (LD background sorry), but I do have a research background and would like you to do some work with your evidence. I am a strong proponent of doing more with less. I will read along as it happens. That being said, my contemporaries are considerably better card people, I did a lot of performance. (translation: pls dont put me in a 2nr/2ar debate about competition theory about the counterplan)

4) I prefer people tell me how to evaluate their debates, framing included, what matters, what doesn't -- filtering / sequencing etc

5) debates are simplest and imo best executed when people reduce the number of args and clarify their argumentation and spend more time discussing the relation to the other teams args / participation in relation to their args, as well as making the link -> impact story more persuasive.

Lastly, I tend to defer to the simplest ballot story possible. Please collapse and make a choice. I think thats the beauty of debate is winning your argument rather than forcing me to have to do the evaluation of a number of sheets in the 2nr. Basically, if you go into the 2nr with 4 off case and expect me to vote on one of them, I'm going to be really upset.

I'll do my best to explain the world you've laid out for me in the debate and how I came to my decision in my RFD but I will not likely explain the the entire world of the debate in relation to implication of (x) unless it helps me vote differently.

keep reading below for specific preferences or how I think about things

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Stuff for Strikes/Prefs:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

debates about debate / pre-fiat: truth > tech

debates about warrants and information / post-fiat: tech > truth; but if you drop a DA, that usually means you lose if the impact o/ws the aff. if it doesn't, I'm just gonna be like wow you really let case o/w that's tough

t/fw: have voted on it but I've been labelled a K hack because of the args I read. I often feel like people should implicate the world view of the framework page more and tell me what their model of debate creates and impact that out. makes life a lot easier for everyone involved imo

Nebel T: boy, I don't get this and I'm too afraid to ask questions now, so pls explain what an up-ward tailed test is or we will both be lost

Theory threshold: kinda high actually, umm LD debaters need impacts to theory and clash is not an impact, it's a standard or an internal link to something -.- in policy, condo is cool. I will vote on condo but I have a high threshold for why you couldn't read the perm and a da to the alt

Critical Non T Affs: I love these, I've even been inspired to write specific positions by 2 debaters I've judged so I guess there's your spillover warrant -- pls have your fw answers and i'm super down to learn some new stuff!

"debatably" T/NonT Affs: really big fan, win your stuff

Tricks: pls don't thx ~~

Cheater CPs: love a smart counterpane debate, I had some fun reading some cheater CPs but I am not a counterplan competition maximalist -- please treat me like I'm a child in this debate, I will not be patronized

High Phil theory: pls strike me ; I genuinely do not enjoy the process of linking offense to a FW in which two things feel very similar and struggle to eval these debates unless there is a comparative advantage / cp / k format. I will judge them if I have to, but its a debate I don't enjoy.

high Phil Ks: I read a good amount of psychoanalysis (Lacan/freud), D&G and some others for classes as well as for leisure reading. That being said, please dont just assume we have mutual understandings of order words or the real x symbolic x the imaginary.

Args like Warming good / Recession good / death good; if warming is good bc it’s great for that one species of phytoplankton, tell me why that phytoplankton is key in comparison to the climate conditions of others; i.e., incremental warming is what's happening now, incrementalism is good) Same for like death good; it's gotta be like "we need to reorient how we see death" otherwise, you're gonna be in for a rough time

K v K debates: probably my preferred debate, as long as you explain what's going on, I'm here to let you run your round and evaluate it how you want me to. These are really fun debates for me to become engaged in and one I love watching.

Case Debate / Turns: yee these are cool

Ramil Gruela Westview 1 rounds None

Rajesh Gupta Independent Del Norte 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 29, 2017 at 4:14 PM PDT

Speech:

It's pretty straightforward. Articulate clearly, don't use filler words, be witty, and be better than your competitiors. :)

Past Experience: I have judged LD for about 30 rounds. In addition, I started judging Parli and Speech last year, with about 10 rounds judging in each field.

Paradigm:

General: I am what my son calls a "lay judge." My main focus is in communication ability. However, I tend to be generous with Speaks (if you get below 28, you must have REALLY done something to get on my nerves, like being rude).

Theory, K's, (Counter)Plans: Don't even bother trying to run "lay theory" while I am your judge. Theory/K's are a waste of debate time, and I would rather have solid refutation than mere complaints. That's not going to get you a win anytime soon. As for Plans, in a Policy resolution, you better have it well laid out for me, with EXACTLY what you want to achieve along with HOW you will accomplish your goal.

Satire: Funny. Don't expect me to understand it.

Spreading: If you speak quickly and communicate your ideas effectively, you will be fine. Try not to go above 275 wpm, though. At that point I can't keep up.

Weighing: Look, if you are going to pay over $50 to come to a tournament, the least I can expect you do is weigh your arguments against theirs. Don't forget to connect every argument you have to the weighing mechanism in question.

Arguments: I am not going to understand arguments that require comprehending a huge number of links (I don't even know what that means; my son told me that I should write that, though.). Make it simple and to the point and you will have me rooting for you to win.

General Knowledge: It's really interesting when debaters connect a topic to a current event, as it crystallizes the argument for me a little more. Of course, I understand that there are some topics that just can't have that happen. However, if you can, kudos to you :).

Etiquette: I don't need your "thank you for coming" and "we appreciate you being here." I appreciate it, but it is not helping you to win/gain Speaks.

TL;DR: I am a lay judge, and don't run anything a common man wouldn't understand. Most importantly, SPEAK CLEARLY. I give the ballot to the person who speaks the most effectively.

Jo Ellen Hamilton Bonita Vista 6 rounds None

Alex Hamner Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Nasser Hamza Westview 2 rounds None

Whitney Hauck-Wood Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Rachael Helfrich El Modena 4 rounds None

Kimi Hendrick Peninsula 6 rounds None

Lorri Herman North Hollywood 6 rounds None

Mukarran Hossain Bonita Vista 2 rounds

Harry Huang Westview 1 rounds None

Samar Irizarry Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Joel Jacobs Berkeley 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 10:11 AM PDT

PARLI:

THE SHORT VERSION: Avoid speed and jargon, and in rebuttal, focus on fewer arguments and develop them rather than trying to win everything. Connect your arguments to the resolution, and where appropriate, to the standard for judging the round, and definitions of key terms. No tag team. No offtime roadmaps/thank yous. Take at least one or two POIs, and don't make that POO unless it's clear cut and important. Unreceptive to kritiks. Raise topicality if the case is legitimately outside the resolution, but do so briefly and simply, explaining the interpretation and violation then moving on. Please run other theory arguments only when necessary to protect the fairness/safety of the space, not just because they're fun or to gain a strategic advantage.

THE LONGER VERSION: I am the debate coach for Berkeley High School. I've been involved in debate (all kinds) for longer than I care to admit, and parli almost the whole time. I am now a practicing lawyer.

1. I tend to focus on where the analysis is, rather than where the drops are.

2. I dislike excessive speed (that is, faster than you would talk outside of a debate round) and jargon (any term that would be unintelligible to a non-debater). Employing either of these will hurt your chances of winning, maybe by a lot.

3. Please, please, please focus on a few key issues in rebuttal and really develop them, rather than trying to cover everything, and saying little about each point. If you don't spend much (or any) time on your key offense, you're in trouble.

4. No tag teaming. It's not your turn to speak.

5. Please don't say "Try or die." It's trite and overused. When you say "try or die," I hear "we don't have any good responses to their analysis that our plan won't solve the problem." Use your time instead to explain your causation arguments more clearly, or the lack of offense on the other side.

6. Topicality is a necessary rule and voting issue, but the cottage industry of theory that has blossomed around it is not only unnecessary but also a huge drag on substantive debate. Do not spend more than 30-90 seconds of any speech on topicality unless the round genuinely presents the most complex topicality question you've ever encountered, or unless you genuinely can't clash on any other argument in the round. If you're challenging their plan/arguments as non-topical, just explain what the Gov team is supposed to prove ("the interpretation") and why they do or don't prove it ("violation/no violation"). If you're challenging their definition, tell me their definition, the "real" definition, why yours is better, and why it matters. That's it. I don't want to hear arguments about the consequences of the violation. If the Gov doesn't affirm the resolution, they lose. If they do, I'll probably ignore topicality unless the Opp interpretation is farfetched and/or they violate the above 30-90 second rule, in which case I'll consider voting against them to deter similar topicality arguments in the future ("RVI"). But again, I will make this call based on the quality of the interpretation and violation arguments; don't waste your speech time with RVI theory. In the interest of candor and your ability to adapt, I've never heard an argument for competing interpretations that I found persuasive, so trying to convince me is not a good use of your time.

7. Please take at least one or two points of information.

8. I'm pretty loose on counterplans as long as a good debate can still be had, and I'm okay with kicking them. I have a pretty low threshold for rejecting plan inclusive counterplans, though, since they usually seem like attempts to avoid having a substantive debate.

9. Kritiks: I am generally unreceptive to them. You can use your speech time however you like, but I have a very strong default to judging the round based on arguments for and against the resolution, which you will have to persuade me to abandon. The fact that you have better K debate skills than your opponent does not inherently validate your stated justification for running the K.

10. Shadow extensions. If an argument is on my flow and unresponded to, it's yours until rebuttals. I don't need it to be extended in every speech if the other side is ignoring it. I'm also not deeply troubled by new responses in LOR that should have been made in MO, because I don't see the harm to the other team. (But I still encourage you to say it in MO when in doubt.)

11. Random things I will not penalize you for ignoring, but I will appreciate if you do read and consider:
a. You don't mean it when you say "Time starts on my first word." That was 12-17 years ago. And even if you're talking about the present, literally, "Time" was your first word. Unless you had an offtime roadmap.
b. It is wrong for me to vote mid-round, so please don't ask me to do it. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't call for the ballot at all. Just make good arguments for your side.
c. "Empirics" doesn't mean what you think it means. Neither does "Solvency."

LD/PUFO:

No plans or counterplans, please. If you run one, I will probably drop you. I prefer traditional-style LD value debate.

POLICY DEBATE

I don't judge policy debate much, but when I do, none of the above applies. I'll judge it based exclusively on the flow, and try to be as tabula rasa as I can.

David Johnson Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Ronald Johnson Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Gia Karpouzis Flintridge Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2019 at 5:25 AM PDT

PF & Parli coach for Nueva

- Use your agency to make this safe space and non-hostile to all debaters & judges

- non-interventionist until the point where something aggressively problematic is said (read: problematic: articulating sexist, racist, ableist, classist, queerphobic, anything that is oppressive or entrenches/legitimates structural violence in-round)

- tech over truth

- please time yourselves and your opponent: I don't like numbers and I certainly don't like keeping track of them when y'all use them for prep, if you ask me how much time you have left I most probably won't know

- if you finish your speech and have extra time at the end, please do not take that time to "go over my own case again" - I recommend weighing if you want to finish your speech time, or alternatively, just end your speech early

parli-specific:

- I guess I expect debaters to ask POI's, but I won't punish you for not asking them in your speaker scores

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speakers are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- I do my best to protect the flow, but articulate points of order anyway

- recently I've heard rounds that include two minutes of an "overview/framework" explaining why tech debate/using "technical terms" in debate is bad - I find this irritating, so it would probably be in your best interest to not run that, although it's not an automatic loss for you, it simply irks me

- feel free to ask questions within "protected time" - it's the debater's prerogative whether or not they accept the POI, but I don't mind debaters asking and answering questions within

- I like uniqueness, I like link chains, I like impact scenarios! These things make for substantive, educational debates!

pf-specific:

- I don't call for cards unless you tell me to; telling me "the ev is sketchy" or "i encourage you to call for the card" isn't telling me to call for the card. tell me "call for the card" - picking and choosing cards based on what I believe is credible or not is sus and seems interventionist

- I don't flow cross fire but it works well to serve how much you know the topic. regardless, if you want anything from crossfire on my flow, reference it in-speech.

- I give speaker scores based on function, not form (I don't care how fluid you are, I care what it is that you're saying). I think speaker points are arbitrary and probably problematic. Tell me to give everyone a 30 and assuming tab allows, I'll do it. That being said, I will never factor in appearance into your speaker points or the ballot. I’m not in the business of policing what debaters wear.

- if you want me to evaluate anything in your final focus make sure it's also in your summary, save for of course frontlines by second-speaking teams - continuity is key

- in terms of rebuttal I guess I expect the second speaking team to frontline, but of course this is your debate round and I'm not in charge of any decisions you make

- hello greetings defense is sticky

- please please please please please WEIGH: tell me why the args you win actually matter in terms of scope, prob, mag, strength of link, clarity of impact, yadda yadda

Other than that please ask me questions as you will, I should vote off of whatever you tell me to vote off of given I understand it. If I don't understand it, I'll probably unknowingly furrow my eyebrows as I'm flowing. Blippy extensions may not be enough for me - at the end of the day if you win the round because of x, explain x consistently and cleanly so there's not a chance for me to miss it.

email me at gia.karpouzis@gmail.com with any questions or comments or if you feel otherwise uncomfortable asking in person

Jim Kennedy Mission Vista 4 rounds

Rebecca Kessinger ILEAD 6 rounds None

Fatema Khan Bonita Vista 5 rounds None

Veronica Kilpatrick Mission Vista 3 rounds None

Linda Kittell Mission Vista 4 rounds

Salihin Kondoker Riverside STEM 4 rounds None

Alexis Lake ILEAD 6 rounds None

Shivan Lala Chaminade 2 rounds None

Iain Lampert ILEAD 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..."

Iain Lampert ILEAD 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.

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.

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..."

Rob Lang Mission Vista 4 rounds None

Greg Lannan ILEAD 6 rounds None

Lee LaVanway ILEAD 6 rounds None

Traci Libby Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Brett Long La Costa Canyon 1 rounds None

Scott Long La Costa Canyon 1 rounds None

Thomas Ly Sherman Oaks Center 6 rounds None

Beatriz Magallon Immaculate Heart 4 rounds None

Heather Magee-Hill Carlsbad 6 rounds

Arnold Maldonado Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Cameron Martin Mount Miguel 6 rounds None

Glenna McShane Bonita Vista 4 rounds None

Amy Miles Somerset Sky Pointe 6 rounds None

Mitch Mitchell La Costa Canyon None

Bob Moore ILEAD 6 rounds

Susan Moore La Canada 2 rounds None

David Morgan Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Alexandra Munoz Flintridge Prep 6 rounds None

Eric Neuner Bonita Vista 4 rounds

John Newell La Salle None

Peter Newell La Salle 6 rounds None

Juliet Nguyen Bonita Vista 2 rounds

Therese Nugent Carlsbad 6 rounds

Anne Parizeau Mission Vista 4 rounds

Jessica Patterson ILEAD 6 rounds

Rachael Phipps Granada Hills 4 rounds None

Fatima Pineda North Hollywood 6 rounds None

Christopher Poole Sherman Oaks Center 6 rounds None

yuhui ren Canyon Crest 2 rounds None

Bob Roberts Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Delynn Russell La Canada 6 rounds None

Charles Schletzbaum Milpitas 1 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

Dan Schlusselberg Westview 1 rounds None

Herlinda Serrano Mission Vista 4 rounds 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!"

Kevin Siebenthal Westview 1 rounds None

Zachary Sierra A-Town 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 5, 2016 at 7:16 AM PDT

Twelve things to know when I am judging you:

1. I do not like spreading. If you are speeding through a debate round and I cannot understand fast enough to flow the arguments, they will get dropped and it will affect your speaker points. Please don't spread with me! I will interupt you to tell you to slow if needed.

2. Utilize your speaking time effectively. Don't over elaborate on points if it's unecessary, but certainly make sure you don't overlook impacting out your contentions. Terminalize why I should care about your points.

3. I compete in open Parli debate at college level, so I am aware of theory arguments, procedurals and the like; however I much prefer direct clash and argumentation. Show me logic, impacts, and explain your points throughly. The fancy stuff is good, and important to work on, but the ability to argue in a clear and informative manner is far more important.

4. Be organized, use subpoints, number your responses, explain your impacts. I will listen to complex arguments but please explain them clearly. If your logic is muddled I will not accept.

5. If I think your argumentation is illogical I will not accept it. Make sure there is a clear thread of reasoning. I do not like nonsequiters and will drop points for that.

6. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments if there is nothing brought up by the opposing team to discredit the factually incorrect argument, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them. Simply put, if I think you are not using accurate information I will not flow it, or will only require a brief mention of the fallacy by the opposition to disregard it.

7. My pet peeve is appeals to emotion or illogical argumetation. Debate is a meeting of the intellects. I want to hear the real world impacts of a plan, not some ephemeral emotional argument. Give me logic, practical benifits, and real world impacts.

8. You should try to take at least one question from the other team in each constructive to avoid confusion. You should also not let them abuse points of information.

9. On topicality, if you're being abused by the aff run it. If you really need ground or see a strategy, have at it. Do not run T just to run T however. If you run it as simply a way to whine then I will drop points. Show the articulated abuse when you run it.

10. Stand when you speak. Partner to partner communication is okay, but no parroting/puppeting.

11. I will do my best to maintain tabula rasa. I will accept argumentation for concepts not held as traditional, so long as good support is made for them. If you can made a good logical case for something controversial it will make it on the flow and be measured same as other points.

12. I hate appeals to bias. I am not on the traditional polotical spectrum, attempts to appeal to either a liberal or conservative bias will be frowned upon. Give me straight logic without the partisian BS.

Caleb Smith Cambridge 1 rounds

Sangeetan Soni Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Angela Stephens New West 6 rounds None

Traci Talamantez Bonita Vista 4 rounds

Eugene Tarasyuk Sherman Oaks Center 6 rounds None

Christine Tempesta Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Lee Thai Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Kate Totz Los Angeles LACES 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 12, 2018 at 3:41 PM EDT

Tldr; Debate is first and foremost an educational experience that needs to be accessible and accommodating to all.

General Preferences: Email chain me at ktotz173@gmail.com before you give your speech please and thank you. I’m fine with flex prep as long as everyone else in the room is cool with it. Speed is fine but debate is still an activity about communicating so please for the love of all that is holy, enunciate and differentiate your tone. Also slow down on analytics ESPECIALLY if they aren’t on the doc. If you just give me 7 minutes of monotone spread I will not be happy. I am doing my best but I can only type so fast. Most importantly, debate is a learning experience first and foremost, I don’t appreciate anyone taking away learning opportunities just for a win. Let me know if you have specific questions on this paradigm, debate, or just life in general before the round starts! Good luck and debate well.

T: - new and improved! Legitimate theory is always cool, friv theory is cool with me as long as it doesn’t take away from anyone’s learning. This means I’m not down for frivolous theory against a kid who has never once encountered theory, that’s not cool. Topicality/framework against K’s, particularly debate space K’s, is really iffy to vote on for me, I will 100% always prefer that you actually engage the meat of the K. Topicality and framework against pretty much anything else is cool with me, but again my threshold for voting on it is pretty high if it’s against anything other than a topical version of the aff. In general, I tend towards standards of accessible education, competing interpretations, and portable skills.

K’s: - love a good k still!! Specific links are always very important; I LOVE a great link story! Perms of K’s need to be very well explained and I need to walk away knowing what the perm world would look like pretty clearly. This means that if you’re deciding between 3 perms with no explanation and 1 really good, well-explained perm, you should always go for the one perm response in front of me. I love a good K aff, but be ready to defend it on the framework and the body level of the K. Debate space K’s will always come before T, all other types of K’s I’m willing to hear debate about which comes first but I tend towards K unless there’s some really great accessible education claims out of the T.

CPs: - nice!!! But please give really good solvency advocates, especially on PICs. Down for PICs, but also down for PIC theory. Get creative with perms but, like with K perms, you need to give me a brief explanation of what the perm world would look like if you want me to vote on it.

DAs: Down, specific link chains are really important to me, as are specific link beginnings. I’m over the ‘any international change will lead to nuke war’ arguments, but I’m very down for specific analysis on why a particular action triggers the DA. The more chains in the link, the less likely I am to buy that the DA turns case.

Framing: In general, utilitarianism and philosophy are kind of fake arguments and I’ll tend to vote on K responses to those arguments, but I do still enjoy a good phil v. phil debate and can follow most phil as long as it’s clearly articulated outside of case.

Michelle Ugarte Bonita Vista 2 rounds

Janet Unger Carlsbad 6 rounds None

Kristi Vasquez Granada Hills 6 rounds None

Kurt Wehmueller Carlsbad 2 rounds None

Srujana Yedulapuram Westview 1 rounds None

Virgil Young Bonita Vista 3 rounds None

Jing Zhou Rancho Bernardo 4 rounds None

Login to Tabroom

La Costa Canyon Winter Classic

2016 — Carlsbad, CA/US

Individual Events Paradigm List

Judges