Judge Philosophies
Aaron Pinto - AmerHer
n/a
Aaron He - Able2Shine
n/a
Akshay Hariharan - Able2Shine
n/a
Alannah Zhou - Alannah
n/a
Alex Night - NOF
n/a
Aly Hamel - S&D Institute
n/a
Amanda Zhu - PDA
n/a
Amanda Nobra - NOF
n/a
Amara Hershey - BruInd
n/a
Amelia Little - Wilshire
n/a
Ami Huang - Able2Shine
n/a
Amy Huang - Able2Shine
n/a
Ana Simonelli - HASCS
n/a
Ananya Misra - Young Voices
n/a
Angela Marie Hutchinson - Emerson
n/a
Angelica Grigsby - NOF
n/a
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Aniket Nighojkar - NOF
n/a
Anindita Bhattacharya - GSA
n/a
Ann Mary Mullane - HASCS
n/a
Anthony Antonyan - Cog Deb
n/a
Asha Taylor - QDLearning
Audrey Han - LYL
n/a
Austin Kelachukwu - NOF
n/a
Ayodele Bolaji - NOF
n/a
Barrett Deng - Able2Shine
n/a
Benjamin Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Beth Cole - NOF
n/a
Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb
n/a
Briana Corona - NOF
n/a
Caleb Prichard - RCMS
n/a
Carol Chen - Able2Shine
n/a
Caroline Cheng - LYL
n/a
Carter Mak - LYL
n/a
Celine Lu - Able2Shine
n/a
Charlotte Wu - AmerHer
n/a
Chirag Parikh - Young Voices
n/a
Chris Flowers - Alter Ethos
update: toc 23'
Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com
TLDR
Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.
I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.
Debaters should not do any of the following:
Clip cards
Steal prep
Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.
Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you dont wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.
Misgender folks
Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.
Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.
Argumentative Preferences
WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.
Education > Fairness
Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.
Ks dont need to win an alt to win.
Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.
Analytic > Low quality evidence
Specific Stuff
Theory
Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.
To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.
t/framework
Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.
Topicality
I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.
Perf Con.
I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.
Counter Plans
If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.
PICs are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.
Conditionality
Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.
DA's
I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.
Presumption
Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.
*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.
Chris Wardner - NOF
n/a
Cindy Tran - Roosevelt
n/a
Collin Tuerk - RCMS
n/a
Connie Ng - Alter Ethos
n/a
Danielle Hobson - RCMS
n/a
Danny Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Dara Adebanjo - NOF
n/a
Debasree Banerjee - Redwood Debate
n/a
Derrick Braswell - NOF
n/a
Dhruv Iyer - AmerHer
n/a
Dr Jordan Atkinson - RCMS
n/a
Dustin Ma - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Eddie Hamel - S&D Institute
n/a
Eli Ballowe - NOF
n/a
Eliza Kim - S&D Institute
n/a
Ellie Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Ellie Estrada - Honor Academy
n/a
Emily Yu - Able2Shine
n/a
Erica Carranza - Albright
n/a
Erica Zhu - LYL
n/a
Esha Bansiya - Able2Shine
n/a
Esther Ayodele - NOF
n/a
Farhan Sodiq - NOF
n/a
Forrest Zeng - ModernBrain
n/a
Frederick D’Aguiar - Uni HS
n/a
Gabrielle Brown - Albright
n/a
Gahl Liberzon - Cog Deb
n/a
Gary Yablon - HASCS
n/a
Gary Li - LYL
n/a
Gopal Majumdar - NOF
n/a
Gordon Ip - Wilshire
n/a
Hannah Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Hayden Watkins - RCMS
n/a
Henry Nathanson - AmerHer
n/a
Idris Ibrahim - NOF
n/a
Irene Tan - S&D Institute
n/a
Irin Hue - Wilshire
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Ivy Litton - RCMS
n/a
Jack Xuan - PDA
n/a
Jade Yoo - Able2Shine
n/a
Jaime Miko - RCMS
n/a
Jaimie Nguyen - NOF
n/a
James Hou - ModernBrain
n/a
James Adams - Uni HS
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.
Jared Koch - NOF
n/a
Jaymee Wolfe - RCMS
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LYL
n/a
Jeffrey Lin - Cog Deb
n/a
Jennifer Quach - Roosevelt
n/a
Jessica Strohman - Able2Shine
n/a
Jiang Hu - Alannah
n/a
Jo Zhu - Able2Shine
n/a
Jonathan Acosta - NOF
n/a
Jordan Hart - NOF
n/a
Jose Hernandez - Uni HS
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Julia Cheng - LYL
n/a
Jyothi Jayachamarajapura - Redwood Debate
n/a
Kaimun Wong - Able2Shine
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Karon Petty - NOF
n/a
Kathleen Hollasch - HASCS
n/a
Katya Azzam - Rhyme and Reason
n/a
Keith Maben - Young Voices
n/a
Kellie Crump - RCMS
n/a
Ken Ogden - NOF
n/a
Kenneth Dancyger - Reed M.S.
n/a
Krishi Jaladi - Able2Shine
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - Cog Deb
EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
Speech
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
Do:
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
DO NOT:
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other teams case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their sides burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
Krys Lynam - RCMS
n/a
Kyle Tang - Roosevelt
n/a
Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lawson Hudson - Alter Ethos
n/a
Leah Ghebrelul - Albright
n/a
Liang Guo - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lily Zhang - Able2Shine
n/a
Lindsey Park - HS
I currently compete in impromptu speech and mock trial. I have experience being a lay judge for only LD. Going faster than normal conversation speed is fine, and I am more lenient with time. Any new arguments introduced in the closing speeches will be ignored.
Lucas Huang - Able2Shine
n/a
Madison Olea - NOF
n/a
Mariclare Rivera - HASCS
n/a
Mariela Garcia Alvarado - Advantage
n/a
Mark Jensen - AofHL
n/a
Mathew Karnyski - AofHL
n/a
Matt Conrad - La Reina
n/a
Max Liu - Able2Shine
n/a
Meera Jance - Young Voices
n/a
Mengdi Xiong - Able2Shine
n/a
Mi Hee Song - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Michael Yu - Redwood Debate
n/a
Michelle Ng - Redwood Debate
n/a
Michelle Fan - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Mila de Mol van Otterloo - S&D Institute
n/a
Minying Huang - Able2Shine
n/a
Mishaal Said - NOF
n/a
Molly Bruins - SMS
n/a
Monika Kadakia - Redwood Debate
n/a
Natalie Chen - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Neil Mao - Redwood Debate
n/a
Olamilekan Oderanti - NOF
n/a
Oluwabukunmi Babatunde - NOF
n/a
Opeyemi Gideon - NOF
n/a
Parsa Hassanpour - Able2Shine
n/a
Payton Simpson - RCMS
n/a
Peace John-Kalio - NOF
n/a
Ping Luo - Able2Shine
n/a
Pranav Dharwadkar - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Pranjal Verma - NOF
n/a
R. A. Velasquez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Rachel Zhou - Able2Shine
n/a
Rajat Ahuja - Young Voices
n/a
Rajyalakshmi Nimmagadda - Advantage
n/a
Ritabrata Mitra - NOF
n/a
Robert Missonis - Stuart
n/a
Robin Deems - RCMS
n/a
Rosa Wu - Wilshire
n/a
Ryan Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Ryan Ohanessian - Wilshire
n/a
Sam Jones - iLearn
n/a
Samantha Togno - La Reina
n/a
Samuel Ayodele - NOF
n/a
Serena Yang - Able2Shine
n/a
Shreya Sadhwani - Able2Shine
n/a
Shreyan Singha - AmerHer
n/a
Shri G - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Skyler Kim - NOF
n/a
Stephen Sledzieski - Redwood Debate
n/a
Sudheer Chekka - Redwood Debate
n/a
Sung Suh - Redwood Debate
n/a
Suresh Dussa - Advantage
n/a
Tae Hue - Wilshire
n/a
Tasneem Sabri - RISE
n/a
Ted Chung - Wilshire
n/a
Teresa Wong - Roosevelt
n/a
Tony Chen - Able2Shine
n/a
Travis Cornett - NOF
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Victor Owolabi - NOF
n/a
Vidya Sambasivan - Brooks Debate
n/a
Vinod Reddy - Advantage
n/a
Wendy Zhou - Nova 42
n/a
William Turner Sr. - iLearn
n/a
Xuejun Jiao - Able2Shine
n/a
Yaoxuan (Cara) Xie - AmerHer
n/a
Yeon Cho - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Yesenia Romero - NOF
n/a
Yun Ye - Able2Shine
n/a
Zarana Shah - Young Voices
n/a