Judge Philosophies
Alden Do - Roosevelt
n/a
Alexis Lay - Roosevelt
n/a
Amy Furber-Dobson - Confident Class
n/a
Anil Kasinadhuni - V-LYLA
n/a
Anindya Bhaduri - GSA
n/a
Annabel Lee - V-LYLA
n/a
Beau Breeden - Athens Debate
n/a
Bhawna Singh - GSA
n/a
Brianna Do - Athens Debate
n/a
Charles Zhu - V-LYLA
n/a
Clinton Lau - V-LYLA
n/a
Confidence Nkoroh - Roosevelt
n/a
Corin Wallace - Athens Debate
n/a
Daniel Baek - Nova 42
n/a
Elena Peng - V-LYLA
n/a
Hadyeh Saborouh - Wilshire
n/a
Irene Song - Nova 42
n/a
Isabella Lam - Roosevelt
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.
Jason Ames - Confident Class
n/a
Jayden Phung - Roosevelt
n/a
Jenifer Montgomery - QDLearning
Jennifer Quach - Roosevelt
n/a
Jeremiah Jung - Nova 42
n/a
Joaquin Vivar - Roosevelt
n/a
Kelly Hoang - Roosevelt
n/a
Kevin Ozomaro - Athens Debate
n/a
Kiran Nandamuri - GSA
n/a
Kylie Chung - V-LYLA
n/a
Laurence Park - Nova 42
n/a
Lila Daoudi - Wilshire
n/a
Maogang Wang - GSA
n/a
Neelu Nagori - Young Voices
n/a
Nirmalya Patra - Young Voices
n/a
Padmanabhan Sadagopan - GSA
n/a
Prakash Bhagavathi - GSA
n/a
Seema Goyal - Young Voices
n/a
Shiv Ramanna - GSA
n/a
Sirisha Gandi - Young Voices
n/a
Sunita Gupta - GSA
n/a
Tahseen Arefeen - Athens Debate
n/a
Tong Liu - GSA
n/a
Vasundhara Panja - Young Voices
n/a
Veena Sundaramoorthy - Roosevelt
n/a
Weilin Zhang - V-LYLA
n/a