Judge Philosophies
Aaron Chung - QDLearning
Almas Raza - Nova 42
n/a
Amanda Liu - QDLearning
Cindy Gutierrez - Mt. SAC
-All claims should have a clear link to evidence or precedent. If youre going to tell me that UBI leads to nuclear war, you need to have someincrediblystrong evidence.
-Dont be rude to your opponent. We debate because we enjoy it, dont ruin that for someone.
-I do not like spreading. I believe it makes debate incredibly inaccessible for many people who are not neurotypical. I understand that some forms of debate require it, so if you spread, make sure you are still saying words. If I have your case and can not even track your arguments while reading them, that is too fast. I will say clear if that is the case.
Claudia Hyun - Nova 42
n/a
Daniel Kyle - Nova 42
Ebru Dogan - Nova 42
Emma Green - Nova 42
n/a
Erica Yang - QDLearning
Iris Wang - QDLearning
Israel Beltran - Wilshire
n/a
Jack Han - QDLearning
James Kyle - Nova 42
n/a
Janell 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.
Jenifer Montgomery - QDLearning
John Ferris - Nova 42
n/a
Joseph Barrientos - Morning L
n/a
Julia Cai - QDLearning
Justine Fisher - Nova 42
n/a
Laura Pei - Nova 42
n/a
Liz Juarez - Nova 42
n/a
Michael Murray - Nova 42
Nancy Yang - QDLearning
Ram Subramanyan - Nova 42
n/a
Riley Fisher - Nova 42
n/a
Robert Montgomery - QDLearning
Steve Pham - Nova 42
n/a
Susan Yoshimura - Nova 42
n/a
TJ Rosas - West
n/a