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
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.)
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