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
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.)
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
NAU-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.
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
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