Judge Philosophies
Aakash Gangadhare - ModernBrain
n/a
Abhi Wadhwa - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Akinjayeju Mitchell - YDRC
n/a
Akshay Agarwal - GSA
n/a
Alex Night - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alexander Tivlumun - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alyssa Layne - NAU
n/a
Andrew Potter - OUAZ
n/a
Anil Raj - GSA
n/a
Anna Liu - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Anshu Chaudhary - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ben Cantrell - Cantrell Crest
n/a
Ben Lee - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Cecilia Lopez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chesley Dohl - Nova 42
n/a
Chinwendu Ayodele - Tourn Judges
n/a
Cristol Park - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Crystal Yao - Westridge
n/a
David Jay - MLA
n/a
Devika Nair - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Edward Rumbos-Perez - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Edward Hamel - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Eli Ballowe - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ericka Delgado Gameros - Tourn Judges
n/a
Godslove Matthew - Tourn Judges
n/a
Gordon Lui - S&D Institute
n/a
Haitao Wang - ModernBrain
n/a
Hassan Usman - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hassana Abdullahi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hazel Huang - S&D Institute
n/a
Hephzibah David - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hephzibah Blessing - Tourn Judges
n/a
Iris Liu - Helios
n/a
Jackie Fassbender - Nova 42
James Kyle - 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.
Jatheen Anand - GSA
n/a
Jia Lauber - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jing Tong - ModernBrain
n/a
Jocelyn Moran - Tourn Judges
n/a
Josh Steinle - Able2Shine
n/a
Katie Fan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kuosheng Ma - Flintridge Prep
n/a
Lauren Velasquez-Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Lauren Gamez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Lee Thach - CL
n/a
Lili Chen - GSA
n/a
Linh Nguyen - Brooks Debate
n/a
Liz Zhou - Westridge
n/a
Luciann Nguyen - Able2Shine
n/a
Madeline Lee - Nova 42
n/a
Madhura Khare - Young Voices
n/a
Manvi Khurana - ModernBrain
n/a
Maria Chavez - NDA
n/a
Mariah Moore - BASIS Fremont
n/a
Matheno FrazierBey - Able2Shine
n/a
Maya Origel - Westridge
n/a
Meir Bonnard - Tourn Judges
n/a
Michael Mazzara - Nova 42
n/a
Mohamad Almouazzen - Mt. SAC
Experience: I completed for two years on the community college circuit in IPDA and Parli debate, taking both events to Regionals, State, and Nationals. My ideal debate round is most importantly respectful on all sides, and focuses on the clash of ideas! IPDA for me is not about the detailed refutation of every claim, but the overall argument of the two sides on the resolution. For Parli, I have one fundamental rule which is to never spread, there is most definitely a difference between spreading and speaking fast, but if I have to call clear you are speaking way too fast.
Muhammadbaqir Oloruntoyin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Namrata Patel - GSA
n/a
Oluwatobi Oyewumi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Onyido Prosper - Tourn Judges
n/a
Parminder Sahota - ModernBrain
n/a
Paula Hyatt - SMS
n/a
Poema Oleas Mekhitarian - S&D Institute
n/a
Rashi Solanki - Young Voices
n/a
Ritika Verma - 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.
Saurav Meena - Tourn Judges
n/a
Shivani Mishra - Tourn Judges
n/a
Shruti Pandalraju - ModernBrain
n/a
Sofia Kingston - Tourn Judges
n/a
Success Anjorin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Veronica Galvez - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Wei Jiang - GSA
n/a
Wyllene Turner - Able2Shine
n/a
Yiraldo Campos - Able2Shine
n/a
Zhen Li - ModernBrain
n/a
john smith - Tourn Judges
n/a