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.

Competed in high school public forum for 3 years, from 2014 through 2017, primarily in Michigan state and local level competitions, with a few national events including Glenbrooks, Blake, and NSDA nationals. Judged a few tournaments afterwards, also in 2017.

I should still be comfortable with debate jargon unless there have been big changes in the last 7 years. And even if there are new terms, I imagine context will make them clear enough.

I intend to keep a thorough flow for every round. I care more about the strength of arguments than your presentation style. As long as I can understand the words you're saying, delivery is unlikely to affect my decision, although it can affect speaker points.

To decide the round, I will look at the impacts each side has carried through to the end, and weigh them. You should tell me how and why I should weigh competing impacts in your favor. If you don't explain why your impacts are more important than your opponent's, I am forced to make that evaluation myself, which is not ideal, because my decision will be more dependent on my subjective preferences.

I'm open to a wide variety of round strategies and arguments.

In crossfire, do not speak over your opponents.

Also ensure that crossfire is constrained to asking and answering questions. Don't ask a 10-sentence "question" that's just you trying to extend your rebuttal time, and keep your responses focused on the question asked. Excessive crossfire violations will result in docked speaker points and may even impact my ruling.

Please ensure you remain respectful of your opponents at all times.

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.

Harvard '28 | SA-HSLA MA '24

-

Who am I?

[Long Time Policy Debater]
[Previous Experience: Lexington Semi Finalist 22, Dragon Invitational Semi Finalist 21, Various Speaker Awards, Dragon Invitational Semi Finalist '22]

[K Debater]

Arguments

Run what you wish (MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND IT)

[Aff: Topical version of the Affirmative]

[Negative: Kritiks (Love them if they are allowed) (Please use a Counter Plan and make sure you know how to counter a permutation)]

Spreading/Speaking:
You are able to spread but make it where I can fully understand you

What I want from you?

Call me Zack, not judge

30s are given to speakers who are able to demonstrate high understanding of the topic at hand

Run Jokes, +0.25 if you make a joke about your argument and it can be correlated with it, -0.1 if you're mean and unkind with the joke +0.5 if you make a personal example [you'll start at 27.5 with me and go up or down based on how good or bad you do as a speaker]

No (Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Etc, as it will not be allowed in the judging space)

Be Respectful

Email me (always)

Zackfdebate@gmail.com [Possibly could change] [Or simply ask]

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.

I'm the Lead Chess teacher based out of SA Harlem East. I have a background in philosophy and physics.

As a lay judge, no spreading, theory, K's or performance. Keep it logical and, most importantly, topical.

I am very truth over tech and will not vote blindly on things like Nuke War impacts unless properly explained and extended.

Hello! I'm Bibi, and I recently graduate from the University of Pennsylvania in biology. I love running, art, and debate!

I'm currently a debate teacher/coach at Success Academy Middle School in Ozone Park!

My email: bibi.singh@saschools.org

I've debated three years of Varsity Public Forum in high school. I was a mentor on my team and judged debate for around six years on both the high school and collegiate level in Philly!

I prefer clear well-spoken speakers that can get their content across effectively. In terms of content, I want to see the impact of your position on a much broader scale. Specifically, make sure you answer this question, why should I care?

In terms of speeches, I prefer that people stand when they speak. During cross, I prefer to keep our environment respectful, with no rudeness and no overpowering others. I prefer no oral prompting.

I accept frameworks and off-time road-maps but make sure they're relevant and don't overuse them (don't roadmap every single one of your speeches to me, it should be organized) In terms of card-reading, please don't call for cards excessively in the round. Feel free to establish an email chain beforehand if that works well for you.

In terms of judging, I look for clear and cohesive arguments as well as impactful closing statements. I based on who created the most valid points versus who was most aggressive and "hard-hitting. (overall, be passionate but please do not start yelling at your opponents. Have fun. ) I'll give extensive feedback on your specific speeches if you ask for it.

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.

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

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!

Hey yall,

I'm Shiloh and I am currently a policy debater at SA-HSLA. I do not have many preferences when it comes to arguments and I will enter the round with a clear slate (in other words, run whatever you want). I am a fan of good debating and I will vote for the team that does so best. I like moral obligation/ROJ args. For both sides, If you're going for an extinction impact, give me a clear link chain (don't cry extinction without explaining how it happens). It's up to the debaters to explain to me how I should vote in the round, I would prefer to do as little thinking as possible. Finally, please add me to the email chain: @shiloh.williams@sascholar.org

Neg:

• If you're going to run T, please clearly articulate how the aff violates and extend those arguments over the course of the round. Try not to repeat the same exact ideas because I will get bored. If the round gets messy, I will vote on T but if I believe that the neg does not do a good job of explaining how the aff specifically violates the res and why it's bad for debate I will fall back on the other off
• Clear link chains// Do not say that the aff leads to your impacts without explaining how
• Weigh your impacts with the aff's // create as much clash as possible so it's easier for me to vote

Aff:

• Impact calc
• Why should solving for your impacts be prioritized in the round?
• Clearly explain to me how the aff changes the status quo

Speaking:

• Spreading is fine, but if I cannot understand something I will not flow it
• Open-cross is fine
• I don't like rude debaters.
• This goes without saying but do not say anything outrageously offensive, I will vote you down

Feel free to ask me any questions and good luck !