I have 3 years experience as a competitor in CC Parli and IPDA debate. I also have minimal competitor experience in impromptu and extempt. I have over 1year of judging/coaching experience.

I am preferential to well warranted, and impacted arguments. When weighing a round, I look first at stock issues, then weigh the clash on the advantage vs disadvantage, using the judging criteria. I like clear analysis of the functionality of each position (plan/counter plan/advantage/disadvantage). Simply put, explain how your warrants lead to your impacts on the advantage/disadvantage. Also explain how your impacts happen, and what your impacts mean. Terminalize, but only use nuclear war or mass extinction if it is actually warranted. On plan/counter plan, explain each plank, how the plan functions (works), and how it is going to solve the issue at hand. Fiat is not clear analysis. Counter plans should have a clear explanation of mutual exclusivity. Permutations should have a new plan text with both plan and counter plan, with an explanation of how they work together. I also have a soft spot for clearly articulated significance arguments. Also, make sure to call out points of order.

T/Procedurals: When it comes to theory arguments, use them sparingly. Procedurals are useful tools when stock issues are not met by Aff. Call topicalities and trichotomies when the Aff is not upholding their prima facia burdens. Do not run procedurals as a time skew tactic, or as an argument used in every round. I take the rules of debate seriously. Abusing these arguments will not end well for you. When running a procedural, I am looking for clear articulation of the violation, standards, and impacted voters; as well as counter definitions. I do consider RVI arguments; however, they should include counter standards and voters.

K: I am not a fan of K’s; however, this is your round. If you choose to run a K, make sure you are able to clearly explain the theory, the roll of the ballot/alt, and clearly define what ground the other team has within the round. If I find the K to be exclusionary of the other team, I will vote against it. There should also be a clear link to the K and the resolution. Also, make sure not to bite into your own K. I judge K’s harshly due to their nature of calling precedence in a round. For K’s that are completely off topic from the resolution, I will highly consider arguments of disclosure; however, you do still need to interact with the K to the best of your ability.

Spread: I am not a fan of it. I like clear and articulate arguments. I believe speed is a useless tool that is irrelevant to everyday life. Again, this is your round. Before the round begins, I will drop the first team to spread. Be forewarned, if I put my pen down, I can no longer understand your arguments. I pay close attention to calls of slow/clear/speed. If any of the above are called, and the team it is called against does not slow or improve articulation, they will be dropped.

I prefer fun, topical rounds; with articulated, well warranted and impacted case arguments.

While I understand the beast of competition, there is no need to be rude. I will vote down a team if they are exceptionally rude or condescending. There is no need to belittle the other team; it does not prove your intelligence. Bullying is unacceptable and poor sportsmanlike.

Hello! I am the Director of Forensics at Cerritos College. I competed in policy debate for four years in high school, and I did two years of NFA-LD and four years of NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching in PSCFA since 2013. Here are some things you will want to know when I am judging you:

1. I am deaf! Literally, not figuratively. This means you must speak at a conversational speed in front of me. Any rate of speed that is faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will probably result in me understanding maybe 20% of what you are saying, which is not conducive to your chances of winning.
   
   
2. My default evaluation method in policy rounds is to compare a topical plan to the world of the status quo or a competitive counterplan or alternative. As a competitor, I specialized in straight-up strategies: disads, counterplans, procedurals, and case. These are also the debates I am most competent at judging. Don't let me stop you from arguing what you are most comfortable with, but my understanding of straight-up debate is a heckuva lot stronger than my understanding of critical strategies.
   
   
3. I reward big-picture narratives, intuitive arguments, comparative (!) impact calculus, and strategic decision-making. In your rebuttal speech, you should tell me a story explaining why you have won the debate.
   
   
4. I rarely vote for arguments I don't understand.
   
   
5. I am biased against arguments that rely on faulty factual premises. I may vote for such arguments from time to time, but even minimal responses will likely defeat them.
   
   
6. My biggest pet peeve is when you whine instead of making an argument:
   - Whining: Their implementation is vague and they don't explain it! They don't solve! (Waaah!)
   - Argument: I have three reasons why their shoddy implementation of the plan undermines solvency. First, ...
   
   
7. The affirmative team should read a plan or an advocacy/thesis statement with a clearly defined text. The text should be written down for the opponent if requested.
   
   
8. I don't care if you stand or sit or if you prompt your partner a few times; just don't parrot half of their speech to them. You do not need to call points of order in prelims, and please do not do so excessively.

Judging Philosophy

Background Forensics:  
My participation in Forensics centered primarily on Debate and Limited Prep Events, which I did for as long as I was allowed to debate; Policy,  Parliamentary Debate, but also LD and NFA-LD with Impromptu and Extemp along with a fair number of Platforms.  
Coached Parliamentary and NFA-LD debate for Glendale Community College for one year.
Two years of coaching for California State University Los Angeles and teaching Communication 150 classes.  I am in charge of the Parliamentary and NFA-LD Debate along with limited prep EI’s.
Currently coach in charge of Debate at Rio Hondo College and adjunct professor of communications.

Philosophy:
I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedurals that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis.  I firmly believe that speed as a tool should not be used unfairly and clarity of arguments, comes before speed.  Critics, i.e. K’s are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important then whatever else is happening on case.  As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.  For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.
That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.  Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD.  I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.  Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.)