Judge Philosophies
Aaron Eliassian - Tourn Judges
n/a
Abhishek Kumar - Tourn Judges
n/a
Achal Madkan - ModernBrain
n/a
Aidan Okyar - Able2Shine
n/a
Aidan Barlow - Mt. SAC
n/a
Akinjayeju Mitchell - YDRC
n/a
Alena Wilcox - SMS
n/a
Alex Night - Tourn Judges
n/a
Alexander Tivlumun - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anne Liu - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anshu Chaudhary - Tourn Judges
n/a
Anya Desai - Nova 42
n/a
Ashley Butler - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ashutosh Singh - Tourn Judges
n/a
Athena Rodriguez - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ayush Iyengar - Able2Shine
n/a
Bella White - SMS
n/a
Bella Houck - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ben Cantrell - Tourn Judges
n/a
Benjamin Lemley - Tourn Judges
n/a
Bhanu Prakash - GSA
n/a
Brianna Scoleri - Tourn Judges
n/a
Bukunmi Babatunde - Tourn Judges
n/a
Charlotte Brockman - Tourn Judges
n/a
Chesley Dohl - Nova 42
n/a
Chinwendu Ayodele - Tourn Judges
n/a
Christine Wang - LYL
n/a
Clay Miller - Mt. SAC
n/a
Daniel Lai - ModernBrain
n/a
David Henry - Tourn Judges
n/a
Deepali Mehrotra - GSA
n/a
Deepti Pabbisetty - GSA
n/a
Derrick Braswell - Tourn Judges
n/a
Dholya Ram - Tourn Judges
n/a
Dongming Yao - Independent
n/a
Ebubechukwu Anene - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ellie Estrada - Cog Deb
n/a
Emery Ghavam - SMS
n/a
Emily Kim - PSA
n/a
Eric Hu - GSA
n/a
Ericka Delgado-Gameros - Mt. SAC
n/a
Esther Ayodele - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ethan Li - PSA
n/a
Eve Luo - Brooks Debate
n/a
Frank Liu - CMS
n/a
Ganiyat Olowookere - Tourn Judges
n/a
George Thomas - Young Voices
n/a
Godslove Matthew - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hassan Usman - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hassana Abdullahi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hazel Huang - S&D Institute
n/a
Hephzibah Ibukunoluwa - Tourn Judges
n/a
Hui Luo - GSA
n/a
Idris Ibrahim - Tourn Judges
n/a
Iris Wang - QDLearning
Jackie Fassbender - Nova 42
Jacob Welte - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jaimie Nguyen - Tourn Judges
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.
Jeff Harkleroad - LYL
n/a
Jeffrey Lin - Cog Deb
n/a
Joan Kim - PCHS
n/a
Joan Joseph - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jocelyn Moran - Mt. SAC
n/a
Jomiloju Epoyun - LYL
n/a
Joseline Molina - Velasquez Academy
n/a
Josephine Janeway - SMS
n/a
Josh Steinle - Able2Shine
n/a
Juan Igarzabal - Tourn Judges
n/a
Julia Cheng - LYL
n/a
Jung Park - Nova 42
Junzhuo Zhong - Tourn Judges
n/a
Jyoti Balaji - GSA
n/a
Kai Kim - PSA
n/a
Kaitlyn Horng - LYL
n/a
Katie Fan - Tourn Judges
n/a
Kiernan Fiore - Holy Innocents
n/a
Kristina Rietveld - Cog Deb
EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com
Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)
ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.
What I like:
- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.
- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.
- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.
- I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).
- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, I prefer mandates that are in the news, have be done before or have at least been proposed; No random plans that you think are good. Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.
- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.
-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.
What I don't like:
- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic.
- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, No aff K's ever (kritikal advantages are fine, but not an all out K). Rule 2, make sure your K somehow links to the resolution for the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 3, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 4, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.
- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.
- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.
- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.
- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.
Speech
I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.
Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.
Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.
Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.
Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.
NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (for the rest of my paradigm that is not specific to CPFL but still relevant to all debate styles, reference the remainder of the paradigm):
Do:
-Include a value/criteria
-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)
-Communicate when you are using prep time
DO NOT:
-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)
-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other teams case substantively)
I will vote for the team that best upholds their sides burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.
Lee Davis - Mt. SAC
n/a
Lisa Podos - ModernBrain
n/a
Luvienne Sans - LYL
n/a
Madison Olea - Tourn Judges
n/a
Manish Gupta - GSA
n/a
Mariah Moore - Able2Shine
n/a
Mark Mak - LYL
n/a
Megan Thompson - Tourn Judges
n/a
Mike Kyle - Nova 42
Muhammadbaqir Oloruntoyin - Tourn Judges
n/a
Muideen Popoola - Tourn Judges
n/a
Natalia Robert - Nova 42
n/a
Nathaniel Priyakumar - Oxford
n/a
Neetu Goyal - Brooks Debate
n/a
Nicolas Davis - SMS
n/a
Olamide Olayinka - Tourn Judges
n/a
Oluwatobi Oyewumi - Tourn Judges
n/a
Omprakash Rengaraj - Young Voices
n/a
Onyido Prosper - Tourn Judges
n/a
Palanisamy KK - Young Voices
n/a
Patrick Sammon - STAHS FTL
n/a
Peace John-Kalio - Tourn Judges
n/a
Peter Wang - LYL
n/a
Poema Oleas Mekhitarian - S&D Institute
n/a
Rachel Alarcon - Mt. SAC
n/a
Rachel Kwak - Mt. SAC
n/a
Rachna Agrawal - GSA
n/a
Rahul Shah - Tourn Judges
n/a
Randi Hoffman - Nova 42
n/a
Richa Charora - Able2Shine
n/a
Ritika Verma - Tourn Judges
n/a
Ryleigh Ho - SMS
n/a
Sampath Thummati - GSA
n/a
Saurav Meena - Tourn Judges
n/a
Shan Yang - YDRC
n/a
Shivani Mishra - Tourn Judges
n/a
Sophie Boswell - SMS
n/a
Subhashini Yegappan - GSA
n/a
Suhani Murali - ModernBrain
n/a
Sundeep Singatwaria - GSA
n/a
Sushil Gote - GSA
n/a
Suvarchala Nookala - GSA
n/a
Sydney Rettig - Able2Shine
n/a
Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges
n/a
Tulsi Shah - GSA
n/a
Tushar Kanekar - GSA
n/a
Vineela Regulapati - Brooks Debate
n/a
Wei Zhong - ModernBrain
n/a
William Turner Sr. - Holy Innocents
n/a
Wyllene Turner - Able2Shine
n/a
Xianmei Meng - YDRC
n/a
Yardley Rosas - CL
n/a
Yesenia Romero - Tourn Judges
n/a
john smith - Tourn Judges
n/a