Judge Philosophies
Anna Wolde - Confident Class
n/a
Bala Ponnulakshmi Ramakrishnan - Brooks Debate
n/a
Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb
n/a
Cason Yu - Brooks Debate
n/a
Cynthia Martinez - JMS
n/a
David Valadez - Confident Class
n/a
Dipti Shah - GSA
n/a
Dustin Ma - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Eduardo Velazquez - ModernBrain
n/a
Emi Kim - Wilshire
n/a
Fidencio Jimenez - ModernBrain
n/a
Forrest Fulgenzi - Cog Deb
n/a
Gahl Liberzon - Cog Deb
n/a
Gisela Liu - GSA
n/a
Iris Wang - QDLearning
Janiel Victorino - QDLearning
Events I Judge: LD, PF, US Parlimentary, Congress, Speech
Judge since: 2019
Debate Style: Tech-pref w/ narrative override.
Ideal Round: Clash-focused, pedagogically intentional, with impact clarity.
How I Judge:
Truth > vibes | Action > potential | Pedagogy > punishment
As a speech native, Performance is my native language. Ive spent years competing in Platform and Interp before learning the technical side of debate starting in 2019. That means I see debate through a speech artists eyes, but Ive also trained to follow complex flows and evaluate technical debates with care.
Youll get strong post-round feedback, My ballot isnt just about winning; its about growing.
What I Prioritize:
Whether speech or debate, I care most about:
Strategic storytelling (Why does your argument/performance matter?)
Delivery with purpose (Are you performing or presenting, or just reciting?)
Intentional structure (Are you guiding me through your ideas clearly?)
Clash and comparison (Are you answering what your opponent said, or just repeating yourself?)
Debate Specifics
Speed: Moderate tolerance. I can follow fast rounds & will resort to verbatim flow if I dont understand something, but clarity > rate.
Theory & T: Yes, Ill vote on it, but its not an auto win. I need a full shell (Interp, Violation, Standards, Voters) clearly outlined and signposted. I dont vote on potential abuse, show me it mattered in this round.
Framework:
If its LD or PF, help me understand how you want me to evaluate. Weighing the world is essential. ROBs and ROJs are fine but you have to teach me your framing inside the round.
Kritiks:
Love hearing them. But you must explain how the alt solves, what the link is (specific, not just vibes), and how you win under your framing. If I dont get a clear why that matters for the ballot, Ill flow back to the other team.
Speech as Performance:
In all events I judge~ I notice if your voice, pacing, or body posture reinforce (or undermine) your message. Debate is also a performance, you just might not realize youre acting.
Feedback Style
Ballots will be timestamped (line by line in speech, key moments in debate), feedback-rich, and tied to both NSDA skills and real-world habits.
I do not always rank according to personal opinionI have voted down arguments I deeply disagreed with, because technical mastery won.
I will explain myself. If you dont see the logic behind my RFD, email me if you see it in your ballot, I archive ballots and flows for follow-up learning.
Lets grow together.
(Coach Note: I respect all coaching philosophies and am glad to calibrate feedback style if specific priorities or league norms are communicated pre-tournament.)
Jimna Cisto - Brooks Debate
n/a
JoAnna Green - El Monte
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Kari Norder - Confident Class
n/a
Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lucius Zha - ModernBrain
n/a
Mi Hee Song - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Miles Morton - ModernBrain
n/a
Miriam Davenport - Emerson
n/a
Mohana Kumpatla - Brooks Debate
n/a
Olivia Cha - AofHL
n/a
R. A. Velasquez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Ramkumar Venkatesan - Brooks Debate
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Seth Casanova - EDUBUS
n/a
Shashwat Maranatha - AofHL
n/a
Shri G - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Sumit Gabada - GSA
n/a
TIya Basilio - AofHL
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Tyler Zabolio - ModernBrain
n/a
William Turner - xxxxx
n/a
Yupeng An - GSA
n/a