Judge Philosophies
Abdullahi Abdulazeez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Abigael Jackson - Tourn Judges
n/a
Akinjayeju Mitchell - YDRC
n/a
Alex Ramos-O'Casey - FCC
n/a
Alex Olafisoye - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alexander Tivlumun - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alexander MacDonald - Tourn Judges
n/a
Aman jha - Tourn Judges
n/a
Amie Clarke - GCU
n/a
Andrew Yee - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Angela Tang - GSA
n/a
Aniket NIghojkar - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anjali Meena - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anjorin Emmanuel - Tourn Judges
n/a
Annie Jiang - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Annie Roy - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anshu Chaudhary - Tourn Judges
n/a
Arabella Wayne - ModernBrain
n/a
Asha Taylor - Speak In Power
n/a
Ashley Lau - Culver City Middle
n/a
Athena Rodriguez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Austin Maverick - Tourn Judges
n/a
Awaji Felix - Tourn Judges
n/a
Briana Corona - Tourn Judges
n/a
Catherine Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Charlie Finnish - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chigozie Chinaka - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chinedum Ayoade - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chinwendu Ayodele - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chris Daniels - Tourn Judges
n/a
Daniel Lin - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
David Play - Tourn Judges
n/a
David Okpor - Tourn Judges
n/a
Daya Gulabani - Tourn Judges
n/a
Deepali Limaye - ModernBrain
n/a
Derrick Braswell - Tourn Judges
n/a
Destinee Sior - Tourn Judges
n/a
Devraj Singh - Tourn Judges
n/a
Dhairya Gurnani - Brooks Debate
n/a
Dominic Stanley-Marcus - Tourn Judges
n/a
Eli Ballowe - Tourn Judges
n/a
Esther Ayodele - Tourn Judges
n/a
Furgurson Dawuda Abubakari Awuni - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ganiyat Olowookere - Tourn Judges
n/a
Godslove Matthew - Tourn Judges
n/a
Greg Gorham - GCU
Hassan Usman - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hassana Abdullahi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Helen Smith - Tourn Judges
n/a
Henry David - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hephzibah Blessing - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hilda Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Idris Ibrahim - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jackie Fassbender - Nova 42
James Jude - Able2Shine
n/a
James Cantrell - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jane Roland - Tourn Judges
n/a
Janell Wang - Nova 42
n/a
Javier Lluch Latorre - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jeffrey Stein - Tourn Judges
n/a
Joan Joseph - Tourn Judges
n/a
John Smith - Tourn Judges
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Joshua Alwin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Joshua owolabi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Juan Duquesne - Tourn Judges
n/a
Julia Cheng - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Juliana Omane - Tourn Judges
n/a
Justin Castañeda - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kahan Kanuga - VIM
n/a
Kavin Siva - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kevin An - ModernBrain
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
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.
Liam Kyle - Nova 42
n/a
Lucas Luo - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Manish Rai - Tourn Judges
n/a
Michael Dvorak - GCU
Mugdha Gupta - Rising Voices
n/a
Muhammad Abdullahi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Muhammadbaqir Oloruntoyin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Nalini Bonam - ModernBrain
n/a
Nancy William - Holy Innocents
n/a
Nathalie Herbst - Holy Innocents
n/a
Nidhi Bhagat - Tourn Judges
n/a
Olamide Olayinka - Tourn Judges
n/a
Oluwabukunmi Babatunde - Tourn Judges
n/a
Oluwatobi Oyewumi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Opeyemi Gideon - Tourn Judges
n/a
Patrick Sammon - Tourn Judges
n/a
Peace John-Kalio - Tourn Judges
n/a
Peace Bartholomew - Tourn Judges
n/a
Popoola Muideen - PCS
n/a
Precious Omilegan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Putri Azzahra - Tourn Judges
n/a
R. A. Velasquez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Rachel Evans - Holy Innocents
n/a
Rahul Shah - Tourn Judges
n/a
Rohan Vijendran - Tourn Judges
n/a
Rohit Sanyal - Tourn Judges
n/a
Rui Li - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Sage Kaminski - NAU
n/a
Salem Monrue - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sam Perry - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Sargam Yadav - Tourn Judges
n/a
Shobhita Ranjan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Success Teminijesu - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sukurat Olamide Oyedokun - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sunay Miduthuri - Tourn Judges
n/a
Susie Gu - LiangyiLeaders
n/a
Taylor Corlee - Crowder
n/a
Tom Worthen - Tourn Judges
n/a
Tommy James - Tourn Judges
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Vartika Sharma - Tourn Judges
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Vicky Xu - ModernBrain
n/a
Victor Smith - Tourn Judges
n/a
Vince Hernandez - Tourn Judges
n/a
William Turner Sr. - Holy Innocents
n/a
Wuraola Fawole - Tourn Judges
n/a
Yesenia Romero - Tourn Judges
n/a
Zion Belcher-Arill - Velasquez Academy
n/a
alex obed - Tourn Judges
n/a