LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

I believe in being the brand. I look for scholars who not only know their policy but are able to articulate it beyond the cards. An argument that isn't concise is no argument at all. I aim for my scholars to present themselves along with the materials they've prepared. I look for presentation and projection; if a scholar knows information but can't present it as if they wrote it, I deduct. I don't want you to memorize; I want you to enact the procedures of informing and persuading. Having worked in news and politics for over 3 years and being part of multiple political campaigns, I seek scholars who believe in the narrative they are pushing. A lack of confidence results in a lack of composure, and you can't win a debate if that's where you start.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

Abram de Bruyn - abram.debruyn@saschools.org He/him/his

BA, Performance Studies | Victoria University, Australia

MA, Philosophy and Education | Teachers College, Columbia University

Experienced Ethics Bowl and Parliamentary Debate Coach. Judged Policy, never competed.

My approach to judging debate is to recognize each format as a distinct game variant and to honor the rules for scoring. I do not award my decision to the smartest or most knowledgeable person(s) in the room but the team with the winning argument(s). Sportsmanship counts for something, and in close decisions can be decisive. I enjoy and appreciate creative and philosophical arguments which shed new light or perspectives on a topic. However, these can also be a distraction for me if the claims being made are less than clear (or the possibilities for mis-interpretation too juicy). I will want to engage with the ideas instead of weighing the arguments. Always remember, contests can be won or lost by how clearly impacts are communicated in conclusion. Tell me how to vote and why, this is your ultimate challenge.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

COACH G - EMAIL : RYAN.GOSLING@saschools.org

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments., Arguments should each be addressed individually. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Citations after article introduction are preferred. How would Oral Prompting affect your decision? It won't How should debaters use values, criteria and arguments to support a value position? Build the value that is not overly complicated and should be relatable, and criterion should not be over technical. What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position? Empirical Please explain your views on kritical arguments. Critical arguments should provide substantial evidence for their support. How should debaters run on case arguments? Make sure all claims are supported with specific, defined examples, no paraphrasing. How should debaters run off case arguments? Make sure they have a purpose or illustration for the case at hand. How should Debaters run theory arguments? The focus should be winning the debate, not just attacking a persons style or flaws of method.

Winning on technicalities isn't winning a debate. What other preferences do you have, as a judge? Remember that in order to win a round, respect towards your opponent is paramount. It is hard to find in favor of debaters who belittle or berate their opponent in or out of round. Graceful winners are as important as graceful losers.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

1. Please no spreading. Irrespective of the quality of your speech, if you spread you will lose.
2. Ensure your speech is coherent. Strong, isolated points will not defeat a weak, coherent speech.
3. As the judge, I will keep track of time. I will let you know when you can start and when you are finished.
4. All speech should be delivered standing.

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

I have no prior experience in speech and debate. I have never competed and only recently started judging. I understand basic debate argumentation but am still learning specific jargon and technicalities. Please try not to speak too fast but I understand that this is a space that requires time constraints. I want to hear any kind of arguments that you have prepared. Please clearly extend your arguments throughout the round, with author names or taglines so I know exactly what you’re extending. I am excited to see what all of you have to say, but please be respectful of each other in round.

Email: cydmarie.debate@gmail.com

Hi everyone! Here are a few things about my style/preferences to keep in mind:

1. Tabula Rasa: I try my best to enter each debate round with a "clean slate." I leave my biases at the door and will judge solely based on the quality and skills of your argumentation. I consider myself a pretty chill judge.

2. WEIGH WELL. I often find it difficult to judge rounds involving little to no weighing. I HIGHLY consider impacts in my decision-making.

3. Rebuttal Speeches: Stay away from being redundant, meaning your rebuttal speeches shouldn’t sound like your constructive speeches. Paint a picture, and tell me why your side should win.

4. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.

5. I enjoy cross-examination/cross-fire periods. Take advantage of your c/x periods and ask your opponents specific, meaningful questions.

6. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect. Please be a kind and decent human being. *Any racist, and discriminatory arguments or language will result in low speaker points and may result in the loss of the round.*

7. Impacts: I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

8. I will never vote for a "human extinction good/death good argument."

9. Speed: Clarity>Speed. Just please project your voice and roadmap, and make sure you're clear. Speak at a reasonable pace. If I can't understand you, then I will probably stop flowing and that's a problem.

10. There's a theatrical component to debate. I want everyone to have fun. Be expressive, focus on your posture, gestures, and eye contact. I will increase speaker points if I see a great demonstration of this in the round.

BEST OF LUCK AND HAVE FUN! :)

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

pulverizer1997@icloud.com to share the evidence

My name is Michael Alexander Pulver. My kids call me Coach MAP but I do not hold you to that standard, as a competitor or fellow coach. In high school I participated in every debate related activity for a small town in East Texas called Athens. My main successes, at that level, were in speech events, Policy, and Lincoln Douglas. Fundamentally, debate is one big joke and, technically, I leveraged that to my advantage as a frame of reference and debate style. My grace and indebted thanks for helping me understand that goes to Nicole Cornish, Jordan Innerarity, and Carver Hodgkiss; without them, I wouldn’t come close to understanding the purpose of speech and debate.

I was lucky enough to pursue a bachelors of science, with Integrative Studies, and compete for the University of North Texas. Parliamentary Debate kicked open the joke, in full-swing, and I got to tour the country in the pursuit of this knowledge. Brian Lain and Louie Petit, along with the incredible alumni of the program, produced content that allowed me to understand this joke from a perspective where I could laugh, and cry, about this “game we play”.

This “game” produces dogs and cats. It’s hard to understand this concept without a full visualization of my philosophy but I’m also certain that the ontological threshold to “understanding” is held within the eye of the beholder. In essence, I was introduced to this concept, within this space, by Jason Jordan, Matthew Gayetsky, and Gabe Murillo. We are simple creatures that, rather simply, have near-zero relationship to ourselves and we reproduce tools in order to filter, with extreme amounts of success, the communication to our “self”. My telos begins at the conception that debate is a space, looking for its time, to break this cycle and we’ve been woefully unsuccessful at stopping this joke from occurring. Side-hustling as a dog trainer opened up synchronicity into my paradigm and vice-versa. Without that realization, I don’t think I could still enjoy coaching, judging, or training. To those three for that help, I am indebted.

At a few moments in time, I did think it was important to write a several page paradigm about my philosophy about "DisAds", "Condo", "CP Theory", etc., etc. but I've discovered we're in a struggle between competitors who are having to "10x" their flows versus institutionalization. I do not see the importance in either. Rather, I defend that debate is a space to have fun and explore. In the time that I judge, I derive purpose from the quality of character and clarity of forensic mapping while producing a decision from what's given. To me, this means I'm not a "tab" or "tech > truth" but rather a "real judge"; and I will agree: "whatever that means?". Though, the more you read through this, and hopefully ask me questions, you will find that I'm simply calling the plays that are given and executing based on the "score" at the end of the debate. Additionally, this means that I weigh topicality in relation to its position on the lemniscate curve where my firmbelief is that it's the extreme finite position; since I know that's your question after reading all this. Brendan Dimmig, Jimi Morales, Cyd-Marie Minier Ciriaco, and Friedrich Hegel are responsible for ingraining this portion and I thank them for simply helping me find this path.

Lastly, I lost a ton of debates in my career. In doing so, I learned more than the wins ever taught me. Without being too "tongue in cheek", Slavoj Žižek taught me how to lose with grace, Sam Cook taught me how to lose on the flow, Will Harper taught me how to lose on framework, Rodrigo Paramo taught me how to lose on character design, and I lost on the "K" to Matt Hernandez, True Head, and Jose Sanchez; without those characters, I'm sure I'd be taking this joke too seriously. To Mom, Dad, and all the cats and dogs out there: you keep me learning and you inspire me to keep going.

TLDR; If you flow well, you understand your prep, and have a fullness to your character-design, you will pick up my ballot.

================================================================================================

FOR Virtual Debates: I find the computer medium does not allow for spreading to be coherent and I won't use the dock as an excuse for that BUT I'm comfortable with all forms of argumentation and I encourage creativity.

Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org

High school - Renaissance Charter School

BA, Philosophy | Queens College

Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.

As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.

The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:

Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)

Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.

Professional Experience: For more than ten years, I studied criminal justice and received undergraduate degrees in criminal justice, criminology, and dispute resolution. I earned a Master's degree in Human Rights Law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and over 5 years of professional experience in legal research, argumentative writing, and debate in criminal courtrooms (arraignments, trials and hearings). Since September, 2023, I have been a coach and judge in PF.

Debate Strategy: It is critical that the argument structure flow smoothly and follow a framework that is clearly topical. If a team drops their argument in multiple speeches and the opposing team fails to notice, emphasize it and explain why it is important, I will not intervene and consider it an offense against you because it is critical for debaters to flow and discredit their opponent's arguments. Card dumping should be avoided. You should be able to explain your own theories with cards as evidentiary support for your theories, as opposed to having an argument that was solely cut from cards. Lastly, I will provide detailed verbal feedback and extensive written feedback.

Technical preferences: Keep track of your own prep time. Standing or sitting during rounds is up to the discretion of the speaker. Medium speed is acceptable, but voice projection must be good and articulation needs to be clear (avoid spreading). Conceding time is only a good strategy when the argument is strong; otherwise, it can be extremely harmful for your argument. It is important for debaters to demonstrate good time management. However, if a question is asked during the CF and GCF rounds, I will allow scholars to finish their sentences should the timer interrupt. I award speakers points for confidence and sportsmanship. Be cool, calm, and respectful throughout the rounds. However, I always appreciate humor and wit.

If you are doing an email chain, you may add me : Prisilla.Villalobos@saschools.org

Good luck!

I'm Sean, any pronouns. I've debated 1 year of JV CEDA Policy debate and I've done about 2.5 years of pf and half a year of Parli. I like to think I'm pretty experienced, I can handle whatever speaking speed, if you're going to go fast just send me a speech doc. My general judging philosophy is that debate is a game, there is no truth value when the round starts. Tell me whatever and I will probably flow it unless it's violent to someone in the debate space.

If I see you consuming an item on the BDS strike list or from starbucks I'm giving you 25 speaks.

I love to be included in things, especially things like email chains! sw4641@nyu.edu

I've read/hit pretty much everything, I like Ks quite a bit, especially weirder ones, so run whatever your heart desires.

I like link level debates a lot, and I feel like I see them pretty rarely in pf. Actually interacting with the other team's arguments rather than talking about your own is probably going to be more productive to me and other judges.

When it comes to weighing, I need you to tell me why your impact is better than the other team's, not just why your impact is good. Comparative weighing makes my job as a judge easier. I'm hearing way too many buzzwords like scope and magnitude, let's just cut it with the terms and tell me straight why your impacts matter more than the other team's.

For pf:

Second summary is a little late to be bringing up new responses, I don't weigh these as heavily and I'm really generous for the first final focus frontlining. Other than that, evidence and new stuff in final focus kind of goes out the window for me.

I know y'all are probably not too used to it but please make an email chain and get your opponent and me on it. Evidence ethics are super sketchy in this event and I just do not want to deal with the 20 minutes wasted every round looking and reading for cards. Just send your speech docs, especially if they use evidence, and we'll all be happier.