Judge Philosophies
Agam Vasani - GSA
n/a
Ahmad Ibrahim - UCSD
n/a
Akrivi Liosi - UCSD
n/a
Alex Chon - NOF
n/a
Alexandra Smith - NOF
n/a
Alice Chen - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Aly Hamel - S&D Institute
n/a
Amanda Hsieh - Uni HS
n/a
Andrew Yee - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Andrew Yllescas - NOF
n/a
Anika Lee - Wilshire
n/a
Aniket Nighojkar - NOF
n/a
Annie Ai - GSA
n/a
Anya Luo - ModernBrain
n/a
Audrey Han - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Avanish Mishra - GSA
n/a
Benjamin Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Bing Neris - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Brandon Chun - Wilshire
n/a
Brendan Vu - UCSD
n/a
Bryan Hunt - Mt. Hood CC
Caitlin Drees - IVC
I am an argumentation professor who has a very little experience with debate in competition. I do not know all the technical jargon so it will not help you in the round. You will want to explain your arguments and how they matter in the round. If you need me to understand the jargon you will need to explain it. Also be polite and nice to each other because I hate rudeness.
My forensic experience as a competitor was limited prep events.
Cameron Conner - CSUF
n/a
Chaitanya Jandhyala - GSA
n/a
Charu Chandra - Brooks Debate
n/a
Chitra Pannirselvam - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Chris Josi - Mt. Hood CC
I have coached for about 3 years after competing and becoming nationally recogonized. My goal now is to always be available to help debaters improve their technique.
I try to be as impartial as I can, and limit the scope to what is happening in the round. However, please do not inflate the truth. I default to qualitative on balance.
You need to impact your points and explain why it is imperative I need to vote for your case. Structure is also very important; I won't connect arguments for you.
Speaking quickly is up to you and your opponent, not me. Please respect each other's pacing. However, as long as I can understand what you're saying I will flow it.
I believe Topicality and Kritik arguments are import, but they should be resevered for when your opponent has stepped out of the bounds of the debate.
Daniel Lin - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Danny Cantrell - NOF
n/a
Derrick Braswell - NOF
n/a
Eduardo Velazquez - ModernBrain
n/a
Eli Ballowe - NOF
n/a
Evan Wei - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Gautam Chanda - GSA
n/a
Glen Castillo - UCSD
n/a
Harry Park - UCSD
n/a
Is Ortiz - NOF
n/a
Isabelle Bennette - Chadwick
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.)
Jay Yan - GSA
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - NOF
n/a
Joannah Cannon - Wilshire
n/a
Johnny Shiell - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Jolene Chou - ACLA Network
n/a
Julia Cheng - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Justine Kesary - UCSD
Hi competitors, Im Justine Kesary. I've been judging Speech & Debate for about 5 years now and I competed for a short time in highschool.
Debate: First off I prefer truth over tech. I believe that in a debate round the importance of it is to be clear, concise and persuasive. These are ideals that cannot be achieved with spreading or excessively fast talking. I will take any argument into consideration as long as it is backed up by logic or evidence. My favorite part about debate is the clash of arguments so you can't win on evidence alone you have to counter every point made by the opposing competitor. A Kritique could work but give me some clear justification for why you believe "Blank'' is bad. Same with a topicality give me some form of justification. To give clear justification you might have to break the format a little bit but its important for enhancing the debate space. I dislike critiques and topicalities that are just made to exclude another team from competing in the round. If the other team is uncomfortable with theory please dont use it. Above all else the most important thing to do to win my ballot is to prove the resolution as the affirmative or to disprove the resolution as the negative. Those are the best debates. Also just for my own notes I prefer if you signpost or give me a clear indication of what contention or point you're addressing in the round.
Speech: For speech I judge on content and performance.
Kaelyn Simon - Uni HS
n/a
Kaori Dadgostar-Shimazaki - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Karen Cui - NOF
n/a
Kate Hong - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Kathryn Kerr - UCSD
n/a
Kostadis Roussos - Helios
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Lekha Thomas - GSA
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.
Levent Atici - UCSD
n/a
Makenna Ma - UCSD
n/a
Manish Khanal - Chadwick
n/a
Manoj Goyal - GSA
n/a
Mat Marr - Able2Shine
n/a
Megan Thompson - NOF
n/a
Michael Cordier - UCSD
n/a
Muhammad Ali Zaidi - GSA
n/a
Nicole Chan - NAL
n/a
Peter Wang - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Rob Zehner - Helios
n/a
Robert Campbell - UCSD
Head Coach, University of California Speech & Debate. Former member of the national championship teams at the University of Kansas. An ideal debate round involves organization of case and arguments, clarity, and clash (direct argumentation). I despise "spreading" (no auctioneer ever won an argument) and any Affirmative "K"s (debate the resolution).
Ryan Rhoades - Mt. Hood CC
n/a
Samyak Karnavat - UCSD
n/a
Saumya Mohan - Helios
n/a
Shawn Howard - UCSD
n/a
Shri Swaminathan - UCSD
n/a
Suren Sanjay - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Syrus Azarbarzin - Uni HS
n/a
Tanvi Jain - UCSD
n/a
Terry Park - Wilshire
n/a
Varun Malhotra - Helios
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
William Choi - Wilshire
n/a
Yijia Zhang - UCSD
n/a
Zhuoya Zhou - UCSD
n/a
Zihad Amin - IVC
Judging Philosophy
2 year community college debater. Competed at state and nationals. Open to everything. Prefer to see debate centered around the resolution. Will flow critiques, but need to make sure the link is clear and strong. Be respectful to your opponents. Partner to partner communication is acceptable, but do not speak for your partner. Will only flow what the primary speaker is saying, nothing that the partner says will be flowed. I have a hearing disability so try not to speak too fast and be clear. Extremely important to be clear so I can get as much of the argument as possible. Will default to judging rounds based on net benefits unless am told otherwise. Really enjoy impact calculus and the round will heavily be weighed on which side provides the clearest and most powerful impacts. I am willing to answer any specific questions debaters may have prior to the round