CSU Fullerton High School Invitational
2015
—
CA/US
Individual Events / Congress Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Marcie Adams
Salem Hills High School
4 rounds
Last changed on
Fri October 16, 2015 at 5:21 AM MDT
I am a Professor of Biology at Brigham Young University. While I have little experience with Debate judging, my occupation requires that arguments be backed by credible evidence. My positions on topics are mostly formed with hard data from top tier sources. Hence, in competitions I look for evidence based assertions, not assumptions. I also applaud intellectual humility instead of pontification.
Randy Ade
San Dieguito Academy
6 rounds
None
Vibha Agarwal
Flintridge Preparatory School
3 rounds
None
Zsolt Alberti
ILEAD North Hollywood
5 rounds
None
Marisa Apostal
Carlsbad High School
None
Brenna Babakhanians
Perfect Score Academy
6 rounds
None
Alia Bakr
De Toledo High School
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat November 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM PDT
Affiliation
Current: none
Oak park (2016)
De Toledo High School (2015-2016)
Oakwood Secondary School (2013-2014)
Granada Hills Charter High School (2010-2013)
I competed in LD for 2 years at local and regional level competitions.
TL;DR: Weighing the impacts and values will write the ballot for you. Don't like Ks ok with CP, P and T. Speed is ok but not preferred.
Frameworks, Presumption, Values:
I prefer traditional value\ value criterion frameworks, but so long as you create a means to evaluate and prioritize arguments in the round I will be happy. I will not automatically presume either side based without sufficient work put in to the debate round. (i.e. do not just extend a blippy sentence from your fw and expect that I will presume). I like to see how the framework debate interacts in the round provide lots of differentiated arguments here.
Weighing
Weighing is the most important thing you can do in a debate round! Weighing analysis of framework, impacts, and contention level arguments writes the ballot for you.
- Explain in the round how the framework interacts, and how you either gain access through the impacts through both frameworks.,
- Identify if any impacts are prerequisites to other impacts.
- Do an impact analysis of any competing impacts.
- Explain why extensions and drops are significant.
Theory
I am okay with theory arguments, if your opponent is being obviously abusive. Theory is only as important as you make it in the round. I don’t typically vote on RVI’s.
Kritikis, Disads, CPs, Plans
I am fine with Disads, CP’s and Plans. For plans and counterplans, please slow down for the plan text and counterplan text. I do not however, like kritiks. I think that they are a lazy debater’s excuse to never write a case again. Use a kritik at your own risk, and know that in order for me to vote for a K it must be very Compelling.
Speed
I adhere to the clear rule, but find that speed detriments from persuasion.
Debasish Bandyopadhyay
Oxford Academy
2 rounds
None
Fatima Barak
Granada Hills High
8 rounds
None
Brian Blakistone
San Dieguito Academy
3 rounds
Last changed on
Fri October 16, 2015 at 6:07 PM EDT
Any judging.
Carol Blakistone
San Dieguito Academy
3 rounds
Last changed on
Wed October 14, 2015 at 1:44 PM EDT
Lay Judge
Shelly Bright
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Amie Brown
San Dieguito Academy
3 rounds
None
David Browning
Los Osos HS
5 rounds
None
Mary Buchanan
La Costa Canyon HS
4 rounds
None
Jeffery Butiu
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Jeffrey Butiu
Riverside STEM Academy
3 rounds
None
Anita Chatterjee
Oxford Academy
6 rounds
None
Anita Chatterjee
Oxford Academy
None
David Chavez
Nova 42
6 rounds
None
John Chen
Oxford Academy
3 rounds
None
Valli Chidambaram
Carlsbad High School
6 rounds
None
Peter Cho
Oxford Academy
3 rounds
None
Daein Chung
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
3 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.
Jared Cohen
California
6 rounds
None
Victor Contrecio Salcedo
Hire
None
ada cordero sacks
Hire
4 rounds
None
James Coster
Elite of Irvine
3 rounds
Last changed on
Fri October 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM EDT
Competed for several years on the college level in both Parli debate and NFA LD. Flow oriented judge. Any argument is fine, so long as you explain why that argument is relevant, and why it should be weighted more heavily then other arguments. Speed is fine, so long as the other team can keep up. I try to be as blank of a slate as possible, so be sure to explain how you would you prefer me to judge the round (role of the ballot, criteria, weighing mechanism, etc)
Lorrie Crawford
Nova 42
6 rounds
Last changed on
Sun January 13, 2019 at 9:36 AM PDT
Being rude to opponents is not a good strategy.
Rolling your eyes will tank your speaks. Being rude and toxic will tank your speaks.
Lay out your arguments in a clear and slow manner so I can understand your points.
I vote off crossfire. Can't help it, but I do.
Olga Crisol
Flintridge Preparatory School
3 rounds
None
Damin Curtis
Carlsbad High School
6 rounds
None
Dave Curtis
Carlsbad Speech and Debate Academy
6 rounds
None
Abdullah Danishwar
Granada Hills High
8 rounds
None
Virginia Davies
Hire
2 rounds
None
Frank Delaney
Claremont High School
6 rounds
None
Swati Desai
Riverside STEM Academy
3 rounds
None
Jo Diamse
Bonita Vista High School
None
Beatrice Diaz
Immaculate Heart High School
4 rounds
None
Andrea Dudikova
Carlsbad High School
6 rounds
None
Curt Erales
San Dieguito Academy
3 rounds
None
Mary Fabian
La Costa Canyon HS
None
Sandra Fiene
Sonora High School
None
Samantha Flores
Hire
None
Tina Flores
California
3 rounds
None
Karen Franke
La Costa Canyon HS
None
Yvette Galvan-Hobbs
La Puente High School
None
Yvette Galvan-Hobbs 2
La Puente High School
None
Esther Garcia
Riverside STEM Academy
3 rounds
None
Ileana Gasman
ILEAD North Hollywood
None
Ileana Gasman 1
ILEAD North Hollywood
6 rounds
None
Anthony Gomez
Hire
6 rounds
Last changed on
Mon September 12, 2016 at 5:52 AM PDT
Backround: 6 years policy debate. Debated four years in highschool two years coaching. I'm okay with tag team, spreading, and i determine when prep time stops based on the debaters consensus.
Affs: I can deal with traditional affermatives pretty well seeing as it was the foundation for my debating just remember to extend well and impact everything clearly. As far as k affs are concerned I'll vote on them but am more skewed toward traditional policy options.
Theory: I'll vote on theory if its dropped or the other team doesnt sufficiently answers it. As far as kicking just remember to answer all there offense before you drop it or I'll interpret the debate the way the other team framed it.
Cp/Da: I'm good with CP's/Da's and will vote on them if the neg proves there impacts are comparably worse then the aff and vise versa. At then end of the day there should always be an explanation as to why the CP's better or why the affs better.
Ks: Experienced with Ks and will vote on them if work is put into the link and impact story. There should also be work put into explaining how I should wiegh the impacts of the k versus those of the aff.
Other Stuff:
- I consider anlytics almost as much as cards in my decision.
- speaker points wise I think I'm fair and always average out what I think is best
-I enjoy rounds where there is a lot of back and forth between oppents concerning Impacts
- Lastly remember to always be respectful of everyone in the room.
Felipe Gonzalez
La Puente High School
None
Debrah Graves
Spanish Fork High School
None
Harkishan Grewal
El Modena
2 rounds
None
Harkishan Grewal
El Modena
None
Dave Grove
North Hollywood High School
3 rounds
None
Dave Grove
North Hollywood High School
None
Rashmi Grover
Oxford Academy
3 rounds
None
Debbie Groves
Spanish Fork High School
6 rounds
None
Rodolfo Guevera
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Wayne Guirt
ILEAD North Hollywood
None
Carrie Guo
Claremont High School
3 rounds
None
Neelam Gupta
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
3 rounds
Last changed on
Tue October 9, 2018 at 11:31 AM PDT
Hello! I am the mom of 2 debaters, one in Public Forum currently and the other was in Congress. However, I do not have much experience with judging .
Rules:
1. Spreading is around 350 wpm or more. However, in general, please don't speak fast. If you do, chances are I will drop your speaker points and not catch your arguments.
2. I buy quantifiable impacts that could or already do affect me in my lifetime. I will weigh those higher.
3. IMPACTS, IMPACTS, IMPACTS. Outweigh on impacts and you are more likely to win.
4. Play nice.
5. Don't make up evidence or empirics. I can ask for evidence and if you can't cite it, then I will drop the argument.
Eric Helle
Bonita Vista High School
2 rounds
None
Lucy Helle
Bonita Vista High School
6 rounds
None
Nigel Hernandez
La Puente High School
6 rounds
None
Gary Ho
Nova 42
6 rounds
None
Andrew Hunsaker
Spanish Fork High School
6 rounds
None
Andy Hunsaker
Spanish Fork High School
None
Jan Hunsaker
Spanish Fork High School
6 rounds
Last changed on
Wed October 14, 2015 at 2:31 AM MDT
Have been judging for 25 years.
Allison Huntley
California
6 rounds
None
Martine Hussey
San Dieguito Academy
None
Tiernan Hussey
San Dieguito Academy
3 rounds
None
Daniela Iftimie
Torrey Pines High School Speech and Debate
6 rounds
None
Shaneli Jain
Hire
4 rounds
None
Shaneli Jain
Flintridge Preparatory School
5 rounds
None
Philippa James
Argumentation and Communication Leadership Academy
3 rounds
None
Vaana John
Los Osos HS
5 rounds
None
Cecilia Johnson
Foothill Technology High School
6 rounds
None
Trent Johnson
Chaminade College Preparatory
None
Regan Jones
Hire
1 rounds
None
Regan Jones
California
5 rounds
None
Roxanne Jones
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Marina Juarez
Oxford Academy
2 rounds
None
Jae Jung
Claremont High School
4 rounds
None
Tricia Kading
Hire
4 rounds
None
Jamshid Kavoosi
Claremont High School
4 rounds
None
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM PDT
Background
I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.
General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)
Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:
- Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
- Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
- Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
- Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
- Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
General Debate Philosophy
I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.
Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.
Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm
Regarding speaker points:
I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."
Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.
Structure/Organization:
Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.
Framework (FW):
In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.
In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.
Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Regarding the decision (RFD):
I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.
A few exceptions to this rule:
- Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
- Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
- Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.
I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.
Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.
A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.
B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.
C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.
Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.
Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.
SPEED:
I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.
Irrational Paradigm
This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.
- No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.
Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.
Scott Knouse
Hire
3 rounds
None
Last changed on
Mon January 22, 2024 at 1:09 PM PDT
Traditional judge - Ask me in round.
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..."
Iain Lampert 2
ILEAD North Hollywood
1 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..."
Jan Li
Peninsula High School
3 rounds
None
Lei Lian
Fremont Independent
1 rounds
None
Mrs. Libby
Carlsbad High School
6 rounds
None
Last changed on
Thu October 22, 2015 at 3:47 PM PDT
Hello everyone,
I have debated policy for two years with LACC and continue to be involved with the debate community for about three years (assisting teams and judging tournaments). This paradigm should be applied to any round I judge, whether it is LD, PoFo, Parli, Policy and anything else debate related.
I am open to any type of debate as long as it make sense, so that means you as a debater should tell me how your aff response the resolution (or not). If you are the neg, tell me why the aff is wrong. simple, right?!
Speed: I can flow it, but I do not like when i cannot understand the words that are being uttered. So please ENUNCIATE!
I am good with T's, K's, and theory, but be advise that I do not want to hear pre written blocks that have no clash. This makes the debate boring and less educational for everyone in the room. I would also like to say, if you are running a K that you are running in the aff and the neg, i expect you as a debater to make CLEAR connections.
If you have a straight up debate, that will make my day because we will be doing what this activity is set out to do. haha
CX: I do pay attention, so I might flow it I might not. So I hope this sways you to use your CX usefully. Be polite, I do not enjoy yelling and I bet your opponent does not either. I will dock you speaker points if you are just being rude (you might get the round, but not the speaker award).
I expect from all debaters to paint me the BIG PICTURE!!!!!! By the time we get to the rebuttals, start collapsing to your strongest points to justify your position. Give me the impact calculus, turns, net benefit, and/or anything that makes your case.
Please do not read evidence in the rebuttals or just sight your cards, but instead tell me how your evidence should give you the win.
dropped arguments I do weigh heavy in the round, if used correctly. Extend the dropped argument and tell me how that drop argument works in your benefit. This brings me to my last point, please do not use only debate jargon and expect me to do the work for you. I expect you to tell me how it works in your favor.
I am also open for questions before round, so please ask for clarity if there is something you need answer. Let these long debates begin!
Suzanne Mandel-Mosko
La Costa Canyon HS
None
Sergio Martinez
North Hollywood High School
3 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:03 AM PDT
Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:
https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/
Sergio Martinez 2
North Hollywood High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:03 AM PDT
Please ask specific questions should you have them. Prefer substantive debates. And, fully support teams who take the initiative to stop rounds when concerned re: evidence ethics (the instructions are fully detailed in the NSDA High School Event Manual, pp. 30-33). On Theory and other such arguments in Public Forum Debate:
https://www.vbriefly.com/2021/04/15/equity-in-public-forum-debate-a-critique-of-theory/
Wayne McGuirt
ILEAD North Hollywood
6 rounds
None
Brian Medina
Argumentation and Communication Leadership Academy
5 rounds
None
Ayoub Misherghi
Claremont High School
4 rounds
None
Morton Morton
Hire
1 rounds
None
Michael Murray
Oxford Academy
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 2:27 AM PDT
I spent 9 years as a debater at the college( Diablo Valley College and CSU Long Beach) and high school ( De La Salle HS, Concord, Ca) levels. I am now in my 10th year of coaching and my 9th year of judging. So I've heard almost every argument out there. I mostly competed in parli and policy, but I did some LD as well. I am ok with Kritiks, Counter Plans, and plans. I like good framework and value debate. I am cool with spreading but articulation is key!!! I am a flow judge so sign posting and organization is important. Please weigh impacts and give me voters. In LD make sure you link to a framework and a value and explain why you win under those guidelines. I prefer a more traditional LD debate and I defiantly prefer truth over tech.
Carlos NAva
Bonita Vista High School
None
Carlos Nava
Bonita Vista High School
6 rounds
None
Elizabeth Nesbitt
Flintridge Preparatory School
3 rounds
None
Aaron Nichols
El Modena
6 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:20 AM PDT
I've assistant coached for 13 years mainly as an IE coach.
Debate:
In terms of debate the school I have judged many rounds of Public Forum, Parli, and LD.
I know how to flow, but depending on the round I may not vote solely on flow. As in: An opponent dropping an argument that makes no sense... is still an argument that makes no sense.
I understand most debate jargon, but if you are going to run something really off the wall you may want to take some extra time to explain it.
If you aren't saying anything important I won't flow. If I am lost, I won't flow. If you aren't clear in speaking, I won't flow. I hate spreading with the passion of 1000 burning fiery suns.
I did IEs in high school, so to me the essential part of speech and debate is learning the ability to communicate. So make sure you explain things clearly and concisely. I feel that louder/faster doesn't always equal smarter.
I really like strong (but respectful) clash in crossfire and cross-ex. Really dig into the arguments and show me you know what is going on!
Voters and voting issues in your final speech are key to me inside of whatever framework you have set up. For LD this includes your value and criterion as well as your opponent's.
IEs:
These events are my jam. :)
T Nugent
Carlsbad High School
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 11, 2017 at 12:40 AM PDT
Debates:Convince me with facts - back it up with cards from well-respected sources. Please assume I know nothing about the topic, regardless of whether that might be true or not. I am a flow judge. I prefer a debate on the topic not a
Do not spread! I will judge on clarity of communication which is diminished by spreading. Quantity DOES NOT equal quality and if I get the sense you are trying to just overwhelm me and the competition with information it will most likely work against you.
There is a subjective aspect to most debates and I value agility and responsiveness to the opponents case. I also prioritize preparation, specific vocabulary and decorum. Show polish, professionalism and respect.
I will reward eloquent/articulate speakers appropriately with speaker points, but it also isn't unheard of for me to award low point wins. Focus on your contentions and counters to your opponents' points
Be respectful of your opponents during the heat of battle and in particular during cross-ex! Remain professional and level-headed. I have been known to penalize a team if I feel they were excessively rude, interrupted unnecessarilyy and/or are condescending.
Christy O'Brien
Carlsbad High School
6 rounds
None
Jaspreet Panesar
Sierra Canyon School
None
Jaspreet Panesar
Sierra Canyon School
6 rounds
None
Jeanette Park
Nova 42
3 rounds
None
Jeho Park
Claremont High School
3 rounds
None
Jessica Patteron
ILEAD North Hollywood
3 rounds
Last changed on
Thu June 18, 2020 at 6:37 AM PDT
Been judging speech and debate competitions for about 7 years. I'm a theatre teacher, so I tend to gravitate towards IEs. I'm pretty lay when it comes to debate. I've judged enough over the years so that I can follow along with fast speaking, but not with spreading. I really really love it when arguments are clear, contentions are loudly numbered, and definitions are offered to me if the topic has to do with international relations or foreign policies. Be nice to each other.
Eryn Perea
North Hollywood High School
2 rounds
None
Hue Phan
Oxford Academy
3 rounds
None
Celestino Pichay
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Marlyn Pichay
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Helen Porter
Maple Mountain
6 rounds
None
Robert Presta
La Costa Canyon HS
6 rounds
None
Krystina Primack
Honor Academy
Last changed on
Wed January 6, 2016 at 12:51 PM PDT
In 2 years of competing in intercollegiate forensics I participated in both Loncoln-Douglass and parlimentary debates and have won awards in platform events such as improptu and persuasive speeches. Beyond competing as a student, I have been judging a wide variety of events regularly since 2011. As a judge I prefer cases that can provide solvency and present the most logical evidence ethically and convincingly. I also prefer that the speakers communicate clearly and avoid speed reading.
Carlos Puma
Riverside STEM Academy
3 rounds
None
Jeff Rake
Oakwood School - North Hollywood
3 rounds
Last changed on
Mon April 1, 2019 at 2:42 PM PDT
Four years of high school policy. Then four years in APDA, i.e. college parliamentary. But that was a long time ago. I can handle fairly complex case debate and I still remember theory (topicality, counterplans, etc) but the more theoretical your argument is, the more you are going to need to explain it to me in simple terms. Keep it organized and not too fast and clearly articulate why you win on the flow.
Jeff Rake
Oakwood School - North Hollywood
Last changed on
Mon April 1, 2019 at 2:42 PM PDT
Four years of high school policy. Then four years in APDA, i.e. college parliamentary. But that was a long time ago. I can handle fairly complex case debate and I still remember theory (topicality, counterplans, etc) but the more theoretical your argument is, the more you are going to need to explain it to me in simple terms. Keep it organized and not too fast and clearly articulate why you win on the flow.
Amanda Reese
Los Osos HS
4 rounds
None
Simon Rhee
CL Education
2 rounds
Last changed on
Sun February 14, 2016 at 12:46 PM EDT
Competed in College Parliamentary (2 years) and Coaching for 2 years.
I'll go through the more common paradign questions. Feel free to ask questions about judging philosophy before round if any.
TL;DR: Tabula Rasa, for the most part. Good with speed. Care about links > impacts. Clear voters needed.
Speed/Speaks
I'm fine with all speed. Fast, slow, in-between. Trust me, I can follow, and if I can't, I'll yell "Clear" in-round so you know. If you're going to spread, make sure that your diction is still clear.
SIGN POST!
I find double-clutching annoying, but if you do it, okay. If you care about speaks, slow down taglines, Big Picture statements, and VOTERS. Also, you should be using up all your time.
If phone goes off in round, you are rude to me or opponent(s), or you leave >1min on clock, expect low(er) speaks. Any of those in excess will probably = 0.
If you give a topical and/or funny joke that doesn't take up a lot of time (READ: NOT CASE), then you will probably get bonus speaks and a laugh. :)
Theory
If you can make it make sense and it wins on the flow, it wins. I am a firm believer that the judge does not create the rules of the debate. Because of this, I tend to focus on the metaframing, detailed link articulations, impact calculation, and have a high threshold for 2AR/2NR warrant extensions. Often I will lower the priority of an argument if it is merely shadow extended in the last speech. The last thing you want is for me to interpret the debate or your evidence; interpret it for me.
I studied Rhetoric and Philosophy for my undergraduate, so I have a pretty decent grasp of most philosophies. Still don't assume I know anything. Explain it, link it, show me why it's important.
Run a K. Don't run a K. I'm good with whatever. If you run a K, at least understand your K.
I will drop debater on T. I don't vote on RVI (VERY VERY rare). Seriously though, don't run the T if topical. Be clear in Interp and Vio.
Judging Style/Preferences
LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. LINKS. I don't care if X leads to nuclear war and human extinction. You need clear and detailed link articulation. At the same time, it is the obligation of both teams to point out poor links. If not, I must assume X happens. I care more about links BEFORE impacts.
I don't vote on RVIs. Provide clear offense in voters. I like theory debate, I like RW debate, I like all debate. Don't drop arguments, and if your opponents do, point it out.
I WANT CLASH! :)
I don't want to do the work. Do the work for me. I will if I have to, but please don't make me. I.E. Weigh the debate out and give me clear voters. I flow, so don't worry if opponent says "they never responded to this, I win" when you clearly did respond.
Rules
If there are any rules violations that you want to point out, I'll make a note of it, and we continue on the debate. We will deal with it after rd.
Katty Rodriguez
Hire
None
Ada-Cordero Sacks
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Amandeep Sahota
Flintridge Preparatory School
3 rounds
None
Grace Salazar
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Joel Salcedo
Hire
6 rounds
Last changed on
Thu October 18, 2018 at 6:38 AM PDT
12 years in policy debate. CSU Fullerton.
Quality over quantity
Im open to whatever just give me something substantive to vote on.
K: I don't know all the literature out there and even if I do I expect explanations and I expect you to make it reasonably understandable for your opponent. I like the wild, the unexpected, the innovative.
FW: I like critical AFF's in general but I think FW is important too. Try to keep it organized for me. Framing becomes super important.
CP: Take your time articulating that cp text to me.
DA: If uniqueness is in question I hope you take some extra time clarifying it for me in the last speech.
T: I like topicality in theory but the I dislike how they sometimes play out. If you want me to vote on a standard it should have in round abuse or generally some well warranted reasoning. Dropped blippy arguments are not persuasive to me.
Brittany Samson
Chaminade College Preparatory
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat December 19, 2020 at 5:15 AM PDT
AFA NIET All American 2008.
8 years coaching I.E. and Congress at the high school level.
Competed 4 years collegiate forensics for Northern Illinois University in the events: DI, DUO, PROSE, POETRY, IMPROMPTU, ADS, INFORMATIVE AND POI.
1 year High School Forensics in HI and RADIO speaking for Prospect High School at Sectionals level.
3 year AFA National qualifier(12 qualifications over 3 years in DI, Prose, Poetry, Duo, Info, POI, Impromptu.)
2 year NFA qualifier.
Graduate Second City comedy school. Groundlings Advanced Program.
Professional Actress/Voice Artist/Stand Up Comic.
Debate: 3+ years experience judging POFO, LD, and PARLI. Values: organization, unique arguments, intelligence(specificity), balance.
*Fine with spread in LD/Pofo. Not comfortable judging policy, so not good with spread in policy.
Aurora Sanchez
Riverside STEM Academy
3 rounds
None
Allie Satoda
La Costa Canyon HS
6 rounds
None
Claudia Serrato
Hire
None
Brandon Spars
Sonoma Academy
2 rounds
None
lisa sperow
Hire
4 rounds
None
Rodolfo Sultan
Riverside STEM Academy
None
Alessa Suraci
Arroyo Grande High School
6 rounds
None
Josh Swafford
Bonita Vista High School
None
Josh Swafford
Bonita Vista High School
6 rounds
None
Lily Tang
El Camino Real Charter High School
3 rounds
None
Stephanie Thornton-Harris
Flintridge Preparatory School
3 rounds
None
Denise Vakili
Carlsbad High School
4 rounds
Last changed on
Sun December 31, 2017 at 4:02 AM PDT
- 4th year judging speech & debate
- I do keep a debate flow.
- If you spread, make sure I can understand you.
P.S. I don't shake hands because I don't want us all getting sick. Please don't take it personally. :)
Ricardo Velasquez
Velasquez Academy
5 rounds
None
Bhargav Vyas
Los Osos HS
4 rounds
None
Bhargav Vyas
Los Osos HS
None
Daivik Vyas
Los Osos HS
5 rounds
Last changed on
Sat October 17, 2015 at 1:34 AM PDT
Debate is a two-way street: prove why you're right and your opponent is wrong. Less rhetoric, more substance.
Rachel Wear
Claremont High School
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.
Joy Wheeler
Spanish Fork High School
None
Bud Zeuschner
Hire
3 rounds
Last changed on
Sat April 25, 2020 at 3:45 AM PDT
I have close to 40 years judging debate in every format, and was a policy debater in college. Thus I understand how to flow and how to listen. I appreciate analysis and encourage debaters to draw out inferences and applications. I do not work for the debater - thus enthymemes will have little impact. I will adjudicate what I can flow, but I will not fill in blanks - if not signposted, previewed, reviewed and applied by the debater, it doesn't happen in my decision making. I applaud advanced debaters who help less-talented opponents follow by using good tags and clear organization. Pet peeves: asking negative questions in C-X -- i.e. Question: "Don't you agree....?" Answer: "Yes, I don't agree." Ask straight up questions: "Do you agree....?" Going so fast you spit. Rudeness. Lot's of reasons to make a mistake, never a reason to be rude. If I took my principal with me to judge you, and your performance would cause her to question the value of continued funding of a debate program, you will be in deep trouble on my ballot. I like to hear debate about the topic issues and inferences, not about debate, so save your meta-debate for your graduate theses. Your evidence must be impeccable, but the use, application and inferences drawn from that evidence is the great stuff of debate. I also enjoy debaters who can do more than debate across the flow, but also understand the power of debating "up and down" the flow. If you need help figuring that out, that's what coaches are for.