Judge Philosophies

Alma Salazar - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Andrew Li - Nova 42

n/a


Benny Mock - Confident Class

n/a


Bharani Sivaswamy - Young Voices

n/a


Brian Banuelos - A2S

n/a


Claire Liu - iLearn

n/a


Cody Dang - A2S

n/a


Iris Chiou - Nova 42

n/a


Isaiah Salgato - CL

n/a


Israel Beltran - Wilshire

n/a


Ivy Zhang - QDLearning


James Wang - Nova 42

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.


Jennifer Quach - Roosevelt

n/a


Joseph Choi - Nova 42

n/a


Julia Cheng - LYL

n/a


Kari Norder - Confident Class

n/a


Keira De Leon - Roosevelt

n/a


Kevin Perry - Roosevelt

n/a


Laurent Flores-Freihube - Alverno

n/a


Lily Ye - iLearn

n/a


Limin Lu - LYL

n/a


Nancy Javkhlan - Nova 42

n/a


Nirmalya Patra - Young Voices

n/a


Peter Guo - iLearn

n/a


Ping Luo - A2S

n/a


R. A. Velasquez - Velasquez Academy

n/a


Rahul Agrawal - Young Voices

n/a


Ronnie Cheng - LYL

n/a


Shannon Yan - Roosevelt

n/a


Sienna Fox - Roosevelt

n/a


Sirisha Gandi - Young Voices

n/a


Sodongoo Sodtuya - Nova 42

n/a


Sreesha Nambiar - Young Voices

n/a


Swalaxmi Pandit - Young Voices

n/a


Vanessa Ramirez - Roosevelt

n/a


Vanessa Liu - QDLearning


Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy

n/a


William Yim - Roosevelt

n/a


ralph seymour - A2S

n/a