Adriana La Fuente - Cerritos

I value clear, organized argumentation that connects claims to evidence effectively and emphasizes logical impacts. Nonverbal cues matter to me strong eye contact, vocal variety, and confident body language help convey credibility and connect with the audience. I dont flow spreading; clarity and persuasion come first. In debate, I appreciate well-developed arguments with clear impacts, strong refutation, and respectful engagement. I strive to create a supportive judging environment that encourages growth, critical thinking, and effective communication.

---

Akacia White - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Alec Amador - Cypress College

n/a

---

Alec Lyons - Compton College

n/a

---

Alexander Grigorian - OCC

n/a

---

Alisha Hassanali - UCLA

n/a

---

Annette Ruiz - ULV

n/a

---

Brion Case - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Brittany Roque - SCC

n/a

---

Chloe Dang - PCC

n/a

---

Christian Gutierrez - ULV

n/a

---

Darrin Sahagon - PCC

I'm primarily an IE coach so please treat me like a lay judge and adjust accordingly.

---

David Kish - Palomar

n/a

---

Dejah Jones - OCC

n/a

---

Destiny Lopez - Cerritos

n/a

---

Diego Cely - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Dron Nikam - OCC

n/a

---

Eve Dowdell - CSUF

n/a

---

Francisco Godinez - Cerritos

n/a

---

Gabrielle Hernandez - UCLA

n/a

---

George Talavera - SCC

Competitive Experience:
4 Years of Parli Debate: IVC 2 Years CUI 2 Years. | 4 Years of LD

TLDR: Debate to me is a game and you should play it to the best of your ability. If you're a K team or debater, you should read the K in front of me. I am also a huge fan of theory but I debated all of the types of debate during my time as a competitor; you should feel comfortable going for whatever you want. Lastly, I default to condo being good but won't hesitate to vote for condo bad. I generally tend to vote for the team that does the better debating.

Speed:

Feel free to go as fast as you would like. I will say clear if I can't understand what you are saying. If/when that happens That being said, this is not a requirement to go slower, only to go slower only to be more understandable, which may require you to slow down.

Theory:
Of all of the different facets of debates, I find theoretical debates to be the most
fascinating. You should have an interpretation and a violation that clearly explain
the thesis of your claims. Your claims should be supported by impacted standards
that explicate what fairness or education looks like via the violation. I generally
believe that resolving issues about the rules are a prerequisite to evaluating other
portions of the debate. All of that being said, I think that theory debate exists as a
space where debaters get to challenge one anothers actions and choices through a
channel of fairness and/or education.

Counter Plans:

I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the
negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly
I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Do not
mistake this with an unwillingness to vote for condo bad if you cant justify
your instance of condo.

Offense/Defense:

Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate. However, I still believe that
the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance. This
does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with
effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if
you are behind on the uniqueness debate. There are two scenarios where I
think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness
debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic. Poverty exists in the
United States. If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases
poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact. (2) If you add a systemic
impact as a part of your link turns. If you lose the uniqueness debate on
helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.
However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any
increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make
the link turn an offensive argument. Argument comparison is necessary in all

debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I
just described.

Kritiks:
I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other
arguments, is there a link and what is the impact, how does that team
resolve the impact?

Functionally all the framework page does is provide
impact calculus, it just explains ahead of time which impacts should be
evaluated and which shouldn't so as a result, your framework should have
a role of the ballot explanation and if you really want to make me happy
that ROB will be your FW interpretation. Beyond that, I prefer kritiks
which interrogate the material conditions which surround the
debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to
view the world from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually
of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the
impact framing applies at the in-round level. There are probably words
you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so
it's a good idea to define some of those concepts on a thesis page of some
sort.

Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the
process by which they do that is up for debate. If you're reading
framework arguments about the resolution being a springboard then your
interpretation of how to be topical should be different, right? Beyond that
affirmative kritiks still need to read links, which should link to the topic or
activity directly.

Performance:

Teams that want to have performance debates: Go for it.
Read some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why
your performance is different from the other team's performance and how
that performance resolves the impacts you identify. Teams that don't want
to have performance debates: I think you have a lot of options for how to
answer performance debates and while most of those are theoretical and
frameworked arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance
of the performance and thesis of their claim at some point.

IPDA and Thank Yous:

I never debated this style of debate so do your thing and know that I will listen to your arguments. I am not a fan of long-winded thank-yous, they are not necessary and are arguably a waste of time. Please keep thank yous concise.

---

Gohan Huynh - UCSB

n/a

---

Hannah Egar - OCC

n/a

---

Heart Belingon - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Hera Hartman - OCC

n/a

---

Hiranmayee Subramanyam - Cypress College

n/a

---

Ilya Chepelyuk - IVC

n/a

---

Izzy Brousseau - Palomar

n/a

---

Jacqueline Yu - PCC

Keep the debate clean and well structured. Provide a road map (love an offtime roadmap), signpost, internal previews, and be clear with the order of contentions, sub-points, evidence, etc. I want to be able to flow the debate with ease!

The more clash the better. If an opponent drops an argument - do not let that be the sole reason for the judge to vote, still rationale the point made. Not a huge fan of topicalities, unless within reason. Looking for logic and strong arguments, persuade how your stance stands.

For partner communication in parli, be careful of puppeteering.

Please do not spread. Breathe!

But most of all - 1) don't be rude 2) respect and be kind to those in the round (and in general, everyone), and 3) have fun! Bring that passion!

---

Jaden Huynh - Cal State LA

n/a

---

Jadine Montanez - Grossmont

n/a

---

James Johnson - MSJC

n/a

---

Jasmine Wang - UCSB

n/a

---

Jayden White - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Jett Hall - OCC

n/a

---

Joshua Lopez - RioRunners

n/a

---

Julian Sharkey - RioRunners

n/a

---

Kaila Stolz - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Kathy Alvarez - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Kendra Williams - MSJC

n/a

---

Keoni Carman - Chapman

n/a

---

Kyle Picar - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Kyle Duffy - COC

---

Landen Minor - RioRunners

n/a

---

Layla De Lara - ULV

n/a

---

Liav Shaish - IVC

n/a

---

Lily Bower-Moore - ULV

n/a

---

Lynzie Hinman - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Madison Narvaez - Palomar

n/a

---

Malia Wilke - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Mason Shaff - OCC

n/a

---

Max Hutchins - Palomar

n/a

---

Max Libudziewski - OCC

n/a

---

Maximus Young - Cypress College

n/a

---

Maya Crane - Cerritos

n/a

---

Miguel Carretero - UCLA

n/a

---

Mya Williams-Dennis - Cerritos

n/a

---

Natalie Hertogh - CSUF

n/a

---

Nick Matthews - Cerritos

Hello! I am the DOF 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 national circuit NPDA at UCLA. I have been coaching college debate 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 faster than the dialogue of "The West Wing" will 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 mostly ran 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. In policy rounds, 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. Parli: 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.

I am happy to answer specific questions before the round starts. (But please note: "Do you have any judging preferences?" is not a specific question).

---

Nicolina Deschamps - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Noah Nikolai - UCSB

Hello fellow Earthlings!

I suppose Im about to be judging one of your rounds (or youre just stalking paradigms I guess) so heres a few things to know about me:

-I debated 3 years in high school primarily in LD but also occasionally in PF

-Ive been debating for 1 year in college in IPDA and NPDA Parli

-My favorite color is blue, which may be very apparent from my attire

-Will tend to be a very tech judge, even in IPDA (though there is certain argumentation/jargon I wont accept without thorough explanation/couching terminology to preserve the laymans debate ethos)

-Tech>>truth except when tech is harmful (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.)

-Yes T, yes theory, yes Ks (with IPDA caveat) but do make sure you warrant why the K is necessary to run and dont assume I know all the jargon related to your particular K

-Dont worry if Im not looking up at/reacting to you. Im voting off the flow so thats what Im focusing on. You want me to have my head down and writing during your speech

-Fine with speed but do adapt to opponents requests for speed/clarity unless unreasonable

-Please signpost effectively and be organized. Ill try a bit to figure out where to put argumentation if you dont, but if I cant figure it out it wont go on the flow and wont be evaluated

-Please weigh and terminalize for rounds where thats relevant. It makes judging easier and makes you think critically about your case in relation to your opponents (though I do love some good line-by-line refutations)

-Be kind and respectful to one another, but I do like CX/POI that goes after case/evidence/etc. and to have some clash there. Thats the best (and most entertaining) way to use time. That being said I wont flow anything said in CX unless brought up in a later speech so make sure to do that if you want me to evaluate it

-I hope you have a fun time while debating and are able to learn something new in this round :)

---

Oscar Eguia - PCC

n/a

---

Pearl Hsieh - PCC

n/a

---

Peter Moore - Compton College

n/a

---

Racheal Shepard - Palomar

n/a

---

Renee Orton - MSJC

Renee Orton's Debate Paradigm

I believe that debate is a communication event and therefore the participants should use a clear, audible, understandable vocal rate, tone, and inflection in their delivery. I do not like nor tolerate spread. I do not like fast speaking in debate. A quick rate that is clear, understandable, and respectful to the opposing side may be used. I expect the debater's delivery to create an inclusive atmosphere for those in the round. I debated CEDA in college, (value debate). I did LD at debate camp. Now you understand my delivery preferences.

I flow on paper. Use clear tags lines. Make sure that you clearly state the resolution, provide clear definitions, interpretation, weighing mechanisms, impacts, voters etc. Do not assume I have extensive knowledge on the subject matter. Explain it to me in your case. This is your responsibility. If I don't understand it from your argument, then you run the risk of losing the ballot. Debate is essentially the affirmative's advantages verses the negative's disadvantages. Make me understand your case. Thank you.

In NPDA policy rounds I expect light stock issues to be addressed in plans and counter plans. I take the theoretical viewpoint with the best policy option picking up the ballot. As for topicality, it should only be run if a case is indeed not topical. If it is, go for it. Throwing a T argument on the flow just to see if it sticks or to use it to suck time from the affirmative's speaking time does not promote educational debate. Doing so significantly risks a loss of ballot. As for K arguments, I am not a fan. Use only if there is a blatant, obvious necessity to do so. Topicality and K arguments when used improperly remove the educational value from the debate.

---

Rita Rafael - SCC

Spreading is antithetical to education and will greatly impact how I judge the round. Make logical arguments and practice good storytelling. Do the thinking for your audience, this is key! It should be obvious how you reached your conclusions.

---

Ryan Chamberlain - Cerritos

n/a

---

SarahAnn Renstrom - SD Mesa

n/a

---

Sophia Lepari - Grossmont

n/a

---

Sophia Diaz - IVC

n/a

---

Taz Hellman - Chapman

I believe debate no matter the form should be educational and respectful at its core. This is an academic event and should be treated as such.

Regardless of the type of debate I am watching, I do not like speed, rudeness, unnecessary procedural arguments, or critical positions. If you are spreading please keep in mind that I also have to be able to flow in order to properly judge. If you speak so fast that I cannot then I will just stop flowing.

Dont try to read my facial expressions on how you're doing in debate, not even I am aware of half of my expressions and it could mean literally anything. Stay confident in yourself and you will do great.

I also believe in the rightful distinction between debate events. IPDA is to be accessible to the lay audience while Parli has the room to be more technical. I appreciate signposting/good structure so if you do that I will be a very happy judge!

I will vote solely based on what is said and what is on the flow. I will not make inferences that are not stated if it takes a lot of jumps in logic. I do flow Cross-ex and Points of Information as I believe they are just as much a part of debate as anything else when it comes to the flow.

Feel free to ask any neccesary questions before the round.

---

Teagan Rusk - IVC

n/a

---

Trish BrodakSilva - ELAC

n/a

---

Tyler Paper - Grossmont

n/a

---

Victor Estrada - OCC

n/a

---

Vihaan Bhardwaj - SD Mesa

TLDR: I love debate. Make me love it more by having great logic, strategic refutations, and being yourself. I will evaluate arguments to the fullest extent possible; my decisions will be meticulous, fair, and guided by both common sense and technical knowledge of debate.

Debate experience

2 years competing in Open Parli with San Diego Mesa College.

• Semifinalist at the 2026 International Forensics Association Tournament
• Bronze at national tournament 2026 Phi Rho Pi

Philosophy

I am quasi tabula-rasa. This means that before I enter the debate, I am leaving at the door all forms of bias, political persuasion, and opinions that I otherwise may carry. However, that does not mean I will leave my knowledge of current events at the door. That is to say, if I recognize any false representations of events, sources, or information, I will penalize.

Speaker points

I do not directly look at delivery and speed when deciding which team wins the round. I look at the arguments. Of course, speaking well will earn you high speaker points and might indirectly influence my decision by making your arguments clearer. That said, I am very fond of strategic decision-making in debate and will reward excellent strategy as much as great delivery when deciding speaker points.

A few other notes:

• Be as technical or simple as you want to, I am flexible
• ARTICULATE: dont just say theyre wrong, explain why theyre wrong
• Be fun, I am literally so close to being in your shoes as a novice debater you do not need to be overly formal in front of me. Just be yourself. Im not the biggest fan of being contrived to fit superficial conventions like over-formality and friendliness.
• Facial expressions: my face is expressive but I will try to not give away everything I am thinking while you speak. That said, upon hearing a good argument, I will happily nod or knock.
• Make this round educational, not just favorable to your side. If an argument you made before completely falls apart, dont artificially try to make it sound good. Be honest. Drop arguments that are not contributing to the education of the round and hit harder on the ones that are

---

Wayne Bergeron - Cerritos

n/a

---

Xasive Espinoza - UCLA

n/a

---

Zaniya Jones - SD Mesa

n/a

---