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
Audrey Han - LiangyiLeaders
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 - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Carter Mak - LiangyiLeaders
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
Elizabeth Rostan - QDLearning
Ellie Yoo - Wilshire
n/a
Ellie Estrada - Honor Academy
n/a
Emily Yu - Able2Shine
n/a
Erica Carranza - Albright
n/a
Erica Zhu - LiangyiLeaders
1/ I am an avid supporter of signposting: Using transitions and naming the contention is general good practice -> I follow general good practice in presentation.
2/ I am always looking for strong links and logic in combination with performance and presence.
3/ Have fun, do your best!
There is also hundreds of judges who have better specifications listed... I would say I'm a kind grader who is somewhere farther from lay and leaning towards tech.
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 - LiangyiLeaders
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
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.)
Jared Koch - NOF
n/a
Jaymee Wolfe - RCMS
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LiangyiLeaders
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 - LiangyiLeaders
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 - Regent Legacy
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 - xxxxx
n/a
Samantha Togno - Regent Legacy
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. - xxxxx
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