Cal Lutheran University Invitational
2020
—
Thousand Oaks,
CA/US
Individual Events Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Irma Abarca
El Roble Intermediate
8 rounds
None
Rita Alkhouri
El Roble Intermediate
8 rounds
None
Rita Alkhouri
Claremont
6 rounds
None
Louis Anastas
Valley International Prep
None
Calena Ang
Cajon High School
None
Claudia Asatrian
Campbell Hall HS
None
Last changed on
Sat October 17, 2020 at 4:25 AM PDT
Clear logical arguments based on evidence.
As a second-year judge, I want to understand your logic and evidence. If I can't understand what you say, I can't award you points. Though I understand speaking fast (spreading) is sometimes necessary, by the end of the debate I will judge based on what I understood. If I don't follow you, you may lose. Overstating your case also loses points with me (in other words, "x is unlikely and so many people will suffer" convinces me a lot more than "x will never happen and so the entire world will suffer and die").
I don't appreciate frivolous theory or too much theory. If you can show me why your opponent is being unfair in debating, that helps me judge. Otherwise running theory will probably lose you the debate.
Kate Bim Merle
Beverly Vista Middle School
None
Kyle Brodie
Claremont
None
Jose Campos
Eagle Rock HS
None
Anthony Caraballo
Monroe High School
8 rounds
None
Nikhil Chakravarty
Granada Hills Charter HS
Last changed on
Sat February 6, 2021 at 4:09 AM MST
While in high school, I was an LD debater and competed in Original Advocacy and Oratory. I do not appreciate spreading but will tolerate IF IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE. To be clear: If I cannot understand what you are saying, I will rank you down. I have a good understanding of LD debate however you can consider me a lay judge for any other debate event. I reward solvency and the discrediting of arguments through facts, not rhetoric. I would appreciate it if you could send me your case just so I can better flow the debate. You can send it to chakravartynikhil7@gmail.com.
David Chamberlain
Claremont
Last changed on
Tue May 21, 2024 at 12:37 PM PDT
David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.
In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.
In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.
In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.
Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.
Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.
Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.
Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.
Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".
Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.
Cecilia Chang
Wilshire Academy
None
Andrew Chen
Velasquez Top Education Institute
8 rounds
None
Carol Chong
Academy of Higher Learning
Last changed on
Fri May 31, 2024 at 9:00 AM PDT
I am a flow judge. If I don't understand you, I won't put it into my flow. That said, there is a difference between speaking fast and spreading. You can speak fast but if it is incomprehensible (spreading), I will miss the argument and it didn't make it onto my flow. Also, do not expect me to understand the topic; it is up to the debaters to allow me to understand the round. Please clearly state your impacts in your final speeches.
In LD, there are 4 minutes of prep and I generally don't allow for flex prep. There's cross-x time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep but not clarification (again, that's what cross x is for).
I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I look for arguments that are both logically sound and that have proper evidence to support it. I would probably describe myself as leaning traditional but I am comfortable with progressive arguments.
I have judged Congress, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and Parli, but I am most familiar with LD.
I would also request that there should be a non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Keep track of your own time and your opponent's.
Eunice Chung
Crescenta Valley HS
None
Trenton Cressy
Valley International Prep
None
Michael Daugherty
Claremont
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:38 AM PDT
I am currently the assistant debate coach for Claremont High School. I have been judging and coaching on and off for the last 8 years since I graduated from high school. In high school I primarily did circuit LD but also did parliamentary debate making it to the semi finals of the NPDL TOC. My background is in science so I will more often than not need extra explanation for philosophical arguments, that doesnt mean I wont vote on them but I am less likely to vote on underdeveloped arguments or simply off a tagline. Also, coming from LD i believe that the framework debate is very important in setting up how the judge should evaluate arguments. Absent of any framework I will resort to net benefits. I have no issues with either theory or Ks, but prefer debates to be accessible to both debaters. For example, I have no issues with flowing speed but if you are spreading simply because you think it will prevent your opponent from responding I will dock your speaks and assume you were too afraid to debate the actual topic at hand. The same should apply to theory and critical arguments, if you are using these arguments because they have a legitimate educational, or otherwise (fairness, preventing harms, etc.,) purpose in the round I have no problem voting off of them.
Anthony Demarco
Gabrielino Club
8 rounds
None
Isabella DeMarco
Gabrielino Club
None
Paola Dominguez
West Ranch HS
8 rounds
None
Julie Ellis
El Camino Real Charter High School
None
David Finnigan
Beverly Vista Middle School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:38 PM PDT
I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.
Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.
Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)
Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.
I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.
Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.
Above all, have fun.
David Finnigan
Beverly Hills High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:38 PM PDT
I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.
Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.
Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)
Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.
I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.
Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.
Above all, have fun.
Gail Flores
San Dieguito High School Acadamy
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 12:13 AM PDT
I am a lay (parent) judge. This is my 6th year judging high school Speech & Debate, and I've judged about 3-4 tournaments each year. I've judged just about every event.
The most important things to me are that you try your hardest, do your best, and respect both your competitors and judges. I will leave all of personal opinions about politics, current affairs, etc. at the door, and will listen to you with an open mind.
I will not disclose who won or how everybody ranked. I will provide constructive criticism - both things you did well and what needs improvement - on your ballot.
Jose Flores
Fullerton Union High School
None
Susan Foley
Campbell Hall HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sun April 25, 2021 at 5:10 AM PDT
Parli
- Don't generally like counterplans, unless there are serious advantages to them. Timeframe counterplans, for example, must be seriously warranted to overcome the diminishment of educational value.
- Do not run multiple advocacies - such as disadvantage to plan WITH a counterplan (unless the CP solves the disad, in which case it's an advantage to CP).
- In case you didn't gather, I am not a fan of policy-style debate conventions in the parliamentary format. I will always pref solid case args over theory or "game-y" debate strat.
- Debate the resolution, clash via argumentation and POIs. POIs very important so that clash points can be explored.
- If you abusively POO, I will down you on poor sportsmanship and diminishment of educational value.
- debate value, policy, and fact rounds appropriately. For example, don't try to argue a fact or value resolution based on net benefits, etc. etc. etc. Fact rounds are "preponderance of evidence" and value rounds must identify a paramount value. I will down you for diminishing educational value of parli by co-opting everything to policy format.
LD
- I don't currently coach LD, but did so in the traditional style some years back. Framework is important and the criterion needs to function as a criterion to the value. Like, a measurable, functioning criterion.
- My heart sinks when competitors turn LD into a policy round and run net benefits or some other non-value; net benefits, for example, is just an ill-defined placeholder for any number of values within a pragmatic/consequentialist framework.
- P.S. Morality is not a value. I see it run all the time to my consternation. Morality denotes no actual value... it rather describes a system of principles to describe right and wrong - it is up to you to actually define those principles. There are many types of morality as it is relative to cultural context: Christian morality, prison morality, etc. etc. etc.
- I don't know much about circuit LD but will always pref traditional debating styles (resolutional analysis, evidence, analysis, clash, weighing) over esoteric theory. I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Congress
Not much new here: I look for incisive, insightful analysis of relevant issues. Quality of research matters.
In general, less is more: I'd rather a competitor focus in a single issue and really zero in on the implications/weighing of that rather than superficial coverage of multiple issues.
Stand straight, polished appearance, good projection and vocal nuance. These things are still relevant in a rhetorically-driven debate style such as Congressional Debate.
PF
I'm a traditional-style judge that will vote on the flow (aka "flay judge") - flow leaning. Truth over tech (generally). When saying an author's name and year - slow down ever so slightly and separate it from the rest of the text. Years are important - be sure to include them as PF is intensely time sensitive. Don't spread - I won't flow it.
Speech Requirements:
- 2nd rebuttal does not need to frontline (although it is strategic)
- anything extended in FF also needs to be in summary (no "sticky")
- WEIGH and tell me the story of the round in Final Focus
Things that are important for me:
- Signposting
- Clarity
- evidence integrity - I will check cards if they seem suspect and will vote accordingly (even if other team doesn't call it out)
I do not want you to:
- Spread - I will not flow it nor will I read a document
- read barely-there links to nuke war/extinction
- be rude/condescending/curt in CX
I will vote on Ks and theory ONLY if it is in response to serious abuse. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round.
Last changed on
Fri March 1, 2024 at 6:39 AM PDT
A little about me:
Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2021-Present
Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020
I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.
-
I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.
I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.
Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.
Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.
For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.
Truth > tech.
*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*
In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.
WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.
Maureen Friend
Westview HS - San Diego, CA
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon January 16, 2023 at 1:28 AM PDT
Coach and Advisor to Westview HS in So Cal. I have never competed in Debate. I am all right with varied presentation speeds. Do what works best for you. I appreciate an organized and coherent argument. I am a fair and impartial judge adaptable to all debate styles. I will enter a low-point win if appropriate. If you feel your competitor is more eloquent than you are, do not worry, I will judge a debate on the content of your argument.
Sahrai Garcia
Cajon High School
None
Dean Gerstein
El Roble Intermediate
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat January 18, 2020 at 7:42 AM PDT
Flowy debate judge. Values concise and orderly substantive clash (on warrants, links, and impacts), good time management, consistent strategy, effective use of cross ex, and signposting. Mostly tabula rasa but dings for gross fantasy and adds points for good argumentative use of accurate knowledge of real world. No speaks given for extensive use of debate jargon. Spreading fine as long as the diction is crystalline.
Nataly Gonzalez
Monroe High School
8 rounds
None
Nataly Gonzalez
Monroe High School
8 rounds
None
Bob Gross
Valley International Prep
None
Dave Grove
Calabasas HS
6 rounds
None
Liangyi Gu
Velasquez Top Education Institute
8 rounds
None
Lisa Guo
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Angelica Gutierrez
Cajon High School
None
Erika Gutierrez
Cajon High School
None
Rahim Hassanali
Nobel Charter Middle School
None
Joseph Hauw
Westview HS - San Diego, CA
None
Graham Jones
Wm S Hart HS
None
Shukan Kanuga
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Justine Kesary
Dantesquad
None
Kevin Kunes
La Reina
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed October 12, 2016 at 8:51 AM PDT
I judge based on the flow. Solid clash and preponderance of evidence is what really does It for me. Dropped arguments and unaddressed points are usually the deciding factors of my rounds but they need to be pointed out to be considered. A priori arguments and Kritiks usually don't work in PoFo so please don't stray from the topic just to derail the conversation. Spreading is frowned upon, but speak at whatever pace you want. If I cannot understand you I will let you know.
konnie kwak
Valley International Prep
None
Sing Kwan
Gabrielino Club
None
Melissa Lalum
Foothill Technology High School
8 rounds
None
Shelby LaRue
West HS - Torrance
None
Doug M Lasken
Taft High School
Last changed on
Sun January 17, 2021 at 6:14 AM PDT
My paradigm is as follows:
I don't like spreading because, since it is generally too fast even for college judges to flow, it has an ornamental feel, which is the wrong feel for argumentation. Speaking speed should be in the upper level of what a lay judge can flow.
I don't mind "tech" if it is used to present perspectives that are relevant to the topic, but I do not like the use of tech to move the focus of argumentation away from the topic, such as a "pik," which is an attack on the topic's validity. Sometimes, of course, topics are poorly written or contradictory, but there are no clear rules or procedures for challenging topics in a round, guaranteeing a certain chaos. Some debaters enjoy chaos, but from a judge's point of view the more chaos there is, the harder it is to pick a winner.
Tracy Liu
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Wendy Liu
Gabrielino Club
None
Vishnu Muralis
Taft High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Sat February 15, 2020 at 9:20 AM EDT
I am a High School Debater from Taft High School and am well versed in LD, Parli, POFO, and Policy. I am firmly against spreading and if I do feel that the speed is too high, I will issue a clear. I do stick to the flow throughout the course of the round but I also do expect an impact calculus or voter point explanation in the final speech to prove to me why you won the round. Personally, I am not a very theoretical debater but if you do want to run a T shell or K make sure to stay topical and be polite to the other side and be extremely explicit about the theory. Basically, only run theory when absolutely necessary and stick to arguing the resolution more if you can. I am not a huge fan of arguments that don't adhere to the framer's intent of the resolution. For policy in Parli and Policy debate I weight the policy more than any contentions but for the other forms of debate I judge on impacts and contention validity.
Phuong NgoHazelett
Beverly Hills High School
8 rounds
None
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. :)
Eleanor Nishioka
Wm S Hart HS
None
Patty Perez
Granada Hills Charter HS
None
Lourdes Quevedo
Monroe High School
8 rounds
None
Bianca Quintero
Monroe High School
8 rounds
None
Elijah Reynolds
Fullerton Union High School
8 rounds
None
Yong Rhee
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Maureen Roberts
Claremont
None
Robert Ronne
West HS - Torrance
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:56 AM PDT
In both speech and debate, a cogent speech or case will be preferred.
Michael Rothenberg
Valley International Prep
None
Brooke Schmitt
Foothill Technology High School
6 rounds
None
Hezal Shah
Velasquez Top Education Institute
8 rounds
None
Arhan Shetty
Moorpark High School
8 rounds
None
Silisha Sidell 19
Fullerton Union High School
None
Scottie Sow
Campbell Hall HS
None
David Tang
Gabrielino Club
8 rounds
None
Jill Teehan
Chaminade College Preparatory Middle School
None
Hakop Ter-Akopyan
Monroe High School
None
Jay Tobin
Campbell Hall HS
None
Trang Tran
Campbell Hall HS
Last changed on
Thu November 12, 2020 at 1:48 PM PDT
Hi, I'm a newish parent judge. This is my second PF judging event. Please speak clearly. Thank you.
Laura Wade
Arroyo Grande High School
8 rounds
None
John Walburg
Claremont
None
Robert Walters
Eagle Rock HS
None
matt weis
El Roble Intermediate
8 rounds
None
Ashley Xia
West HS - Torrance
8 rounds
None
Last changed on
Thu October 15, 2020 at 1:59 PM PDT
I have 6+ years of experience judging at many local tournaments, CHSSA and NSDA Nationals. Have judged all events (congress, all forms of debate, all forms of IE). I value both content and style. Do not particularly appreciate spreading.
Jenny Xu
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None
Faten Yacoub
Gabrielino Club
None
Yuzhe Zhao
Gabrielino Club
None
Roger Zhou
Velasquez Top Education Institute
None