Judge Philosophies

Abhishek Singh - NOF

n/a


Afreen Khan - NOF

n/a


Alex Dhupar - FA

n/a


Alex Kim - Cog Deb

n/a


Alex Night - NOF

n/a


Alex Chon - NOF

n/a


Alice Tu - LYL

n/a


Amanda Hensley - RCMS

n/a


Amanda Hsieh - Emerson

n/a


Amanda Nobra - NOF

n/a


Amy Lee - A2S

n/a


Andrew Yllescas - NOF

n/a


Anna Yang - iLearn

n/a


Anthony Shen - RMS

n/a


Ashley Butler - NOF

n/a


Bei Hai - A2S

n/a


Beth Cheung - Emerson

n/a


Beth Cole - NOF

n/a


Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb

n/a


Brian Banuelos - A2S

n/a


Carol Chen - A2S

n/a


Catheline Shin - ACDS

n/a


Chris Arnold - Albright

Tabula rassa.


Cindy Ma - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Cindy Gutierrez - NOF

n/a


Cristy Martinez - Cog Deb

n/a


Dakota Perry - RCMS

n/a


Danielle Hobson - RCMS

n/a


Dara Adebanjo - NOF

n/a


Deborah Onabajo - NOF

n/a


Derrick Braswell - NOF

n/a


Dr Jordan Atkinson - RCMS

n/a


Emily Huang - A2S

n/a


Eric Toothaker - SMS

n/a


Forrest Fulgenzi - Cog Deb

n/a


Gavin Zhu - LYL

n/a


Griffin Abrams - A2S

n/a


Israel Beltran - Wilshire

n/a


Jack Han - QDLearning


Jaime Miko - RCMS

n/a


Jakob Tran - S&D Institute

n/a


Janiel Victorino - QDLearning

My Competitive Career consists of 4 years in the collegiate Circuit; Saddleback College (2015-17), and CSUF (2017-19). I have been a speech and debate judge for the MS/HS circuit since 2017, and for the Collegiate Circuit since 2019. if you need clarification on a ballot, please send an email to [ jvictorino0.forensicsjudge@gmail.com ]

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment. I have made it a personal philosophy to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

if I am unable to comment on evidence organization or speech writing due to speed, I tend to focus on minute analysis of nonverbal decisions.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress, but it is not part of my competitive background. I don't have experience with policy debate as of this writing.

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round. I value organization uniqueness and clash during rounds. Regardless of your evidence quantity, I love it when students are able to have versatile/creative arguments but clear and concise writing. Please signpost. I am looking for how competitors set up all provided evidence in round AND Questioning to counter rebuttals (which means my biggest thing is how evidence is arranged to construct unique arguments), although I also appreciate the occasional framework discussion. I appreciate having round evidence forwarded to me via email, but since I have been in the debate world less than my speech career, I am a flow judge and RFDs will be made purely from in-round proceedings. While I consider initiative and prominence as important (especially in congress) I also do my best to recognize reasons why certain students are not as prominent in round.

I can speed read a little, but I would exercise caution especially during online tournaments. I mentioned earlier that I timestamp comments where possible, but I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots. Professionalism is important to me, but not to the point where a student is quiet, if you have to say something offensive, please keep it within the confines of debate evidence. I like high-energy rounds, whether via morale building or aggressive pacing, but its not the end of the world if the round has calmer proceedings :)

Clarity > Speed.


Jasmine Park - BC Academy

n/a


Jeff Harkleroad - LYL

n/a


Jesse Cote - Cog Deb

n/a


Jessica Yang - QDLearning


Jiayin Zhang - A2S

n/a


Jimna Cisto - Brooks Debate

n/a


John Cao - GSA

n/a


Joseph O'hair - RCMS

n/a


Julie Buxbaum - Reed M.S.

n/a


Kabang Lauron - S&D Institute

n/a


Kaimun Wong - A2S

n/a


Karen Tang - A2S

n/a


Karon Petty - NOF

n/a


Kathy Cai - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Kellie Crump - RCMS

n/a


Kelly Agama - iLearn

n/a


Kenneth Dancyger - Reed M.S.

n/a


Kyna Shen - RMS

n/a


Laura Murray - Challenger MS

n/a


Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Lena Tang - Brooks Debate

n/a


Ling Meng - A2S

n/a


Lisa Xiong - A2S

n/a


Lisa Guo - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Lisa E. Howard - BWS


Mallika Keralapura - ACDS

n/a


Manoj Unnikrishnan - RMS

n/a


Mattias Duran - Speechtopia

n/a


Megan Mayerle - SMS

n/a


Michael Starzynski - NOF

n/a


Miriam Davenport - Emerson

n/a


Mohan Hegde - GSA

n/a


Molly Bruins - SMS

n/a


Monika Patel - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Muskaan Mahajan - NOF

n/a


Padmanabhan Sadagopan - GSA

n/a


Ping Luo - A2S

n/a


Pooja Gupta - GSA

n/a


Rachel Wear - NOF

n/a


Radha Ravi - Brooks Debate

n/a


Rajesh Gowda - GSA

n/a


Rajesh Manduri - Brooks Debate

n/a


Ritabrata Mitra - NOF

n/a


Ryan Yoo - NOF

n/a


Shanmugapriya Jayaraman - Brooks Debate

n/a


Sharon Yan - Brooks Debate

n/a


Sherry Shen - ModernBrain

n/a


Shiv Ramanna - GSA

n/a


Shuba Lall - GSA

n/a


Sophia Dunleavy - SMS

n/a


Stephan Brooks - Brooks Debate

STEPHAN BROOKS

COACHING & COMPETITIVE BACKGROUND:

- Founder / Coach @ Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2016-Present)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Head Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Debate Coach @ Stanford National Forensics Institute in Stanford, CA (Summer 2013-15)
- Debate Coach @ Cal National Debate Institute in Berkeley, CA (Summer 2013)
- Debate & Extemp Coach @ Summit Preparatory High School in Redwood City, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Debate Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I am former debate competitor. I have experience in and have judged all forms of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several California Bay Area schools and programs, including my own private program. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days.


JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- First and foremost, I am a "policymaker" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging 90% of debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word, so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em.

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that crap at home. I want real-world impacts not BS theory garbage.

- On that note, I HATE THEORY. I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! (unless your opponent is legit guilty of a fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc.)

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250-300 words per minute, you're probably going too fast. Also, you will probably lose. And don't bother reading me your stupid block about how reading more stuff is more educational, nothing is educational if it sounds like gibberish, and if you read that block I'll vote you down AND give you negative 500 speaker points. And next to your negative 500 speaker points, I'll write my own education block note stating how receiving negative 500 speaker points is educational and will teach you not to spread in the future when your judge says that they hate spread. And then when ballots get scanned online, your friends will see your negative 500 speaker points, laugh at you, and reinforce that education.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible, even if a tournament director tells me not to. What are they going to do if I break their rule, ban me from judging and doing more work? Oh no! How horrible! I'll just have to sit in the judges room all day, eat free food, and catch up on my work.


MY DEBATE PET PEEVES YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF:

- You absolutely do not need to shake my hand. Kids spread germs, I don't know where your hand has been, I usually work seven days a week and can't afford to get sick. I'll just assume you're sincere about thanking me for judging regardless of whether or not we shook hands and/or the outcome of the debate.

- Am I cool with off-time road maps? No. I'm not cool. (PF Debate only) First, in the time it took you to ask me that, you probably couldn't just given your road map already. Second, it takes just 5 seconds of your time to road map anyways, how precious are those 5 seconds to you, are you going to tell me the meaning of life in those 5 seconds or something? Third and most importantly, are you paying me extra to stay at the tournament longer? If the answer to that last question is no, then forget about your off-time road map. It should really just be called your off-time make Stephan Brooks stay at the tournament longer plan. I am so not cool with that.

- I'm old school when it comes to presentation. Leave your computer at home. I also think cases/evidence on iPads is annoying too, especially when those materials are requested by opponents. If your opponent kindly asks to see a piece of evidence, and it takes you longer to produce that evidence on your laptop/device than it normally would have had you simply just printed the evidence, I will consider dropping you, as it is not cool to be unable to produce evidence during limited prep in an educational activity.

- If you're not getting up to speak, I'm running your prep time. Don't ask for set amounts of prep time- how the heck do you know that you only need 30 seconds to think through everything you need to say? Are you psychic? Also, don't disagree with me about how much prep time you have left- you'll lose.

- Don't be a @#$!& during the debate. You'll lose. It's nice to be nice.

- I have judged since 2005 and can count on my hands the number of times I have legitimately bought a nuclear war impact. If you want me to weigh mushroom clouds on your side, you better work hard for them. Also, you might be on mushrooms if you think I will vote for a silly illogical/unwarranted nuclear war impact.

Do NOT spend half of the debate crying abuse (this is for you Parli people!) and claiming your opponent is violating the rules of _ debate. If they are, I will be smart enough to catch it and you'll win. If they aren't, you will come off as extremely annoying. I love to punish annoying complainers with losses and low speaker points- the low speaker points is to ensure you will not break to elimination rounds based on speaks so I don't have to hear you cry unnecessarily in elimination rounds.

I cannot stress enough how much I hate theory. I watched an elimination round where a competitor won the coin flip for sides, selected AFF, and argued that he was disadvantaged having to debate on the AFF side. Back in my day, new topics came out, and us kids would be excited to debate a new topic- we would not look forward to arguing the same abuse arguments regardless of the resolution.

As far as I'm concerned, Counter-Plans are legal in all debate formats, Public Forum included. We should always be able to argue that the reason we shouldn't do X is because Y is an option, and there is an opportunity cost at stake. I don't care what the stupid NSDA rules say in Public Forum. Also, 99% of you who do Public Forum and complain about counter-plans likely were never taught the 4-5+ necessary components of an actual CP, so shush.


Susie Gu - LYL

n/a


Tai Du - NOF

n/a


Tara Riggs - Princeton Academy

n/a


Tiffani Banks - Albright

n/a


Travis Cornett - NOF

n/a


Veronica Delgado - ACLA Network

n/a


Xuejun Jiao - A2S

n/a


Yun Ye - A2S

n/a


shri G - Frisco Inde

n/a