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 - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Amanda Hensley - RCMS
n/a
Amanda Hsieh - Emerson
n/a
Amanda Nobra - NOF
n/a
Amy Lee - Able2Shine
n/a
Andrew Yllescas - NOF
n/a
Anna Yang - xxxxx
n/a
Anthony Shen - RMS
n/a
Ashley Butler - NOF
n/a
Bei Hai - Able2Shine
n/a
Beth Cheung - Emerson
n/a
Beth Cole - NOF
n/a
Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb
n/a
Brian Banuelos - Able2Shine
n/a
Carol Chen - Able2Shine
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 - Able2Shine
n/a
Eric Toothaker - SMS
n/a
Forrest Fulgenzi - Cog Deb
n/a
Gavin Zhu - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Griffin Abrams - Able2Shine
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
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.)
Jasmine Park - BCA
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Jesse Cote - Cog Deb
n/a
Jessica Yang - QDLearning
Jiayin Zhang - Able2Shine
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 - Able2Shine
n/a
Karen Tang - Able2Shine
n/a
Karon Petty - NOF
n/a
Kathy Cai - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Kellie Crump - RCMS
n/a
Kelly Agama - xxxxx
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
Hi, My name's Lena ! I have a background in medical and business. I've been judging debate for almost 3 years working with Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA.
Judging Preferences:
- I appreciate astrong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be givenclear standardsby which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.
- I prefer when an argument is backed up withfactual evidences through cited sources and quantitative data. If there's no real evidence, then it's just an opinion at this point.
- 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 -PleaseDO NOT repeat the entire debate.
-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. Can't win if I can't hear your arguments properly.
Liang Guo - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Ling Meng - Able2Shine
n/a
Lisa Xiong - Able2Shine
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 - Able2Shine
n/a
Pooja Gupta (Shivansh) - 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 - LiangyiLeaders
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 - Able2Shine
n/a
Yun Ye - Able2Shine
n/a
shri G - Frisco Inde
n/a