Judge Philosophies
Aaron He - Able2Shine
n/a
Adam Favuzzi - HASCS
n/a
Adriena Toghia - FSD
n/a
Alex Sorgini - Thomas Grover MS
n/a
Alex Night - Princeton Academy
n/a
Alexander Nguyen - FSD
n/a
Alexandra Smith - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alice Chen - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Amanda Nobra - Tourn Judges
n/a
Amelia Burns - FSD
n/a
Ananya Misra - Young Voices
n/a
Andrew Schonebaum - AD
n/a
Andrew Jo - Wilshire
n/a
Andrew Yllescas - Tourn Judges
n/a
Angela Yang - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Ann Mary Mullane - HASCS
n/a
Anna Chen - LYL
n/a
Annie Wu - Brooks Debate
n/a
Arthur Harris - S&D Institute
n/a
Ashley Butler - Tourn Judges
n/a
Beth Cole - Tourn Judges
n/a
Bora Park - AofHL
n/a
Brett Boelkens - Cog Deb
n/a
Brianna McGee - Able2Shine
n/a
Carlos Carrasco - LHS
n/a
Charlene Au - Able2Shine
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.
Claire Liu - ModernBrain
n/a
Claribel Gomez - FSD
n/a
Clark McIntyre - Tourn Judges
n/a
Dan Crawford - Tourn Judges
n/a
Dana Bell - Able2Shine
n/a
Devinron Ready - Able2Shine
n/a
Dorothy Vassantachart - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Eddie Hamel - Westridge
n/a
Edward Rumbos-Perez - Westridge
n/a
Ellie Estrada - Cog Deb
n/a
Emily Trader - Advantage
n/a
Eric Geshekter - AD
n/a
Eric Kaprowski - AD
n/a
Erica Zhu - LYL
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.
Ethan Lee - S&D Institute
n/a
Eva Karson - AD
n/a
Felix Fey - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Gabriel Salisbury - Roosevelt
n/a
Gary Yablon - HASCS
n/a
Gordon Lui - LYL
n/a
Grace Wieland - Westridge
n/a
Greg Ray - AD
n/a
Haifeng Wen - LYL
n/a
Hazra Patra - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Heather Klemick - AD
n/a
Isaiah Sohn - LYL
n/a
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Izzy Kim - S&D Institute
n/a
James Hong - ModernBrain
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.
Javin Allen - Brooks Debate
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - LYL
n/a
Jeff Johnson - AD
n/a
Jeffrey Lin - Cog Deb
n/a
Jess Moss - AD
n/a
Jessica Lin - ModernBrain
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Josh Steinle - Able2Shine
n/a
Justin Ting - LYL
n/a
Juvy Aranda - Able2Shine
n/a
Karen Cui - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kevin Jiang - Able2Shine
n/a
Kimberly Alvarado - Wilson High School
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.
Kristina Deng - Able2Shine
n/a
Lakshmikanth Chowdary Pothula - Brooks Debate
n/a
Larissa Santos - Advantage
n/a
Larkin Murray - Westridge
n/a
Laura Ivers - AD
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Lei Tong - ModernBrain
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
Lily Yuan - Able2Shine
n/a
Luvienne Sans - LYL
n/a
Madelyn Wang - Roosevelt
n/a
Man Li - Brooks Debate
n/a
Manish Gupta - GSA
n/a
Manitta Mathew - Young Voices
n/a
Mariclare Rivera - HASCS
n/a
Mariela Garcia Alvarado - Advantage
n/a
Matheno FrazierBey - Able2Shine
n/a
Mathew Karnyski - AofHL
n/a
Meera Jance - Young Voices
n/a
Megan Thompson - Los Altos
n/a
Michael Martinez - Workman High Schoo
n/a
Micheal Brown - Tourn Judges
n/a
Minh Pham - Advantage
n/a
Minh Pham - FSD
n/a
Mona Wu - LYL
n/a
Nirmalya Patra - Young Voices
n/a
Nolan Datema - LYL
Here's how I judge and why:
1.) Consistency with topicality-
How on track and sensible points flow, basically keep on track!
2.) Inconsistencies visited-
Is your argument well linked? Did you defend against counterpoints? (Flow)
3.) Sportsmanship-
Have good sportsmanship: "Whatever the weather we'll be together whether you like it or not!"
Oliver Li - Roosevelt
n/a
Olivia Tan - Westridge
n/a
Olivia Northcutt-Wyly - Able2Shine
n/a
Pearl Kim - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Ping Luo - Able2Shine
n/a
Qimin Lang - LYL
n/a
Rachel Ginzburg - AD
n/a
Rachna Tibrewal - 21st_Century
n/a
Ramanuj Singh - GSA
n/a
Raul Ruano - Advantage
n/a
Rona Marech - AD
n/a
Ryan Woodings - AD
n/a
Saba Nawaz - Able2Shine
n/a
Sal Tinajero - Advantage
n/a
Sam Jones - iLearn
n/a
Samantha Hertzig - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sandie Kim - ModernBrain
n/a
Solomon Hirmz - LYL
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.
Steve Kim - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Sukanta Saha - Advantage
n/a
Taisia/Tayisiya Dubinina - Tourn Judges
n/a
Tao Huang - Able2Shine
n/a
Tara Riggs - Princeton Academy
n/a
Tiffany Au - Able2Shine
n/a
Tim Stroud - AD
n/a
Tiya Basilio - AofHL
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Vanessa Liu - QDLearning
Veda Sudersan - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Virginia Marentette - AD
n/a
Wen Liu - ModernBrain
n/a
Whitney Grimm - AD
n/a
William Turner - iLearn
n/a
William Turner Sr. - iLearn
n/a
Wilson So - Brooks Debate
n/a
Xianmei Meng - ydrc
n/a
Xu Chen - GSA
n/a
Yanhua Wang - GSA
n/a
Yardley Rosas - CL
n/a
Zahira Thuy Ba - Able2Shine
n/a